BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROHTAK
Complaint Case No. :194
Date of Institution : 02.05.2018
Date of Decision : 24.04.2023.
Arya Senior Secondary School, VPO Madina, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak through its Principal Sh. Ashok Dangi.
…………...Complainant.
Versus
- Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd., 10th Floor, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza 1, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034(now known as Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd.)
- Global Automobiles 5 KM Stone, Jhajjar Road, Opp. Lord Krishna College, Vill. Karontha, District Rohtak.
......................Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Nitesh Arora, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of the Mahindra School Bus bearing registration number HR-46-D-9049 which the complainant had purchased from the opposite party no. 2 who is the authorized dealer of the Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Trucks & Bus Division). The said vehicle is comprehensively insured with the opposite party no. 1 vide policy no. 2013-200102-16-1000145-00-000 w.e.f. 06.04.2016 to 05.04.2017. On 21.12.2016, the said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle was taken to opposite party no. 2 on the same day by towing the same. The intimation of the accident was also given to the opposite party no. 1 well within the time. On that, opposite party no. 2 prepared the job card of the vehicle and told that complainant that the estimated cost of repair of accidental damages caused to the vehicle will be around Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter opposite party no. 1 deputed the surveyor who conducted the survey of the alleged vehicle and assessed the loss caused to the vehicle and cost of its repair. The repair of the vehicle was started by the opposite party no. 2 and a repair order was prepared on 02.01.2017 wherein total cost of repair was estimated to be of Rs.2,54,658/-. The surveyor told the complainant that the total cost of repairs shall be transferred into the account of the complainant after repair of the vehicle. The said vehicle was repaired by the opposite party no. 2 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 03.02.2017 vide RO bill No. RBCFLR1160000659 amounting to Rs.1,92,325/- which the complainant paid to the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that on 08.02.2017, an amount of Rs.78,667/- was transferred into the Bank account of the complainant by the opposite party no. 1 on account of claim/loss caused to the said vehicle out of the total amount of Rs.1,92,325/-. The opposite party no. 1 withheld the claim amount of Rs.1,13,658/- which they are liable to pay to the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the balance claim amount of Rs.1,13,658/- but they have been prolonging the matter on one pretext or other. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,658/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 03.02.2017 till its realization alongwith Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no. 1 appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident of the vehicle they deputed M/s N.L.Sharma & Associates, an independent IRDAI Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the damaged vehicle and ascertain extent of liability of insurer therefor. After the repair of the vehicle, opposite party no. 2 submitted invoice number RBCGLR1160000659 dated 03.02.2017 for an amount of Rs.1,92,325/- with the Surveyor and Loss Assessor for verification and release of his report accordingly. It is further submitted that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, on the very same day inspected the repaired vehicle and perused the invoice submitted by the opposite party no. 2. After verification of all the facts and circumstances and after going through the policy terms and conditions, the surveyor and Loss Assessor released his report dated 03.02.2017, thereby qualifying the liability of the answering opposite party as Rs.78,667/-. The assessment was duly explained to the complainant and on its satisfaction, the complainant had executed Discharge Voucher in favour of the answering opposite party. As such, after execution of discharge voucher and receiving amount the complainant is now stopped from raising any grievance and/or seeking additional compensations. It is further submitted that it is admitted fact that the answering opposite party had paid an amount of Rs.78,667/- to the complainant and the complainant is seeking difference of amount of Rs.1,13,658/-. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that the insurance is a contract between the insurer and the insured i.e. opposite party no. 1 and the complainant with which they has no role to play. The payment of the premium has been made by the complainant to the opposite party no. 1 and the policy has been issued by the opposite party no. 1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and closed his evidence vide his separate statement dated 05.09.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. OPW1/A, documents Ex. OP1/1 to Ex. OP1/4 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dated 25.01.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 suffered a statement that reply filed by opposite party no. 2 be read as in his evidence and closed the same vide separate statement on 11.10.2018.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case file minutely and carefully.
5. In the present case, the complainant suffered a loss in the vehicle in question. As per complainant, he spent an amount of Rs.1,92,325/- on repair to the vehicle and he received an amount of Rs. 78,667/- on 08.02.2017. Hence, the opposite party have not paid the remaining amount i.e. Rs.1,13,658/- and the opposite party is liable to pay the same. The present complaint was filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,13,658/- alongwith harassment and litigation charges.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per opposite party No.1 just after receiving the information regarding the accident, they deputed the surveyor M/s N.L.Sharma & Associates to assess the loss in the damaged vehicle. The Surveyor submitted his “Motor repair assessment cum processing sheet” as Ex.OP1/3 instead of survey report with the insurance company regarding the damaged vehicle. As per Ex.OP1/3, complainant is only entitled for an amount of Rs.78667/- and this amount has been paid by the insurance company to the complainant. The complainant also issued a discharge voucher and admitted the amount of Rs.78,667/- as full and final settlement in discharge of liability of the insurance Company regarding the repair charges of the vehicle.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that an assessment has been evaluated upon page no.3 of the “Motor repair assessment cum processing sheet” This “Motor repair assessment cum processing sheet” is also mentioned in written statement as well as in affidavit filed by the opposite party No.1.
8. In the present complaint as per complainant, he has spent an amount of Rs.192325/- upon repair of vehicle. Against this amount the respondent had paid only an amount of Rs.78667/- as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and through this complaint, the complainant is claiming difference of amount i.e. Rs.113658/-. The surveyor has denied this difference of amount in 7 different heads of “Motor repair assessment cum processing sheet’ at page no.3 & 4. The assessment have 7 parts, the opposite party had denied all expenses of the assessment under the head i.e. “part not damaged in Final Survey, Not shown to surveyor and not approved by Surveyor, replaced voluntarily and as such not allowed” and also denied the labour charges mentioned under the head i.e. “Part not damage replaced voluntarily and as such not allowed” As per our opinion the insurance company has not placed on record spot survey report, final survey and re-inspection of the vehicle to assess whether the complainant has voluntarily replaced some parts because the surveyor has mentioned in his report Ex.OP1/3 that some parts has been voluntarily replaced by the complainant as such those have not allowed by the Surveyor for the payment. It has been specifically mentioned in the assessment that the labour charges amounting to Rs.8050/- and Rs.4025/- had not been allowed by the Surveyor because these are the charges of non accidental parts and additional repair work has been done by the complainant at its own. Merely the submissions of the Surveyor cannot be believed without authentic proof i.e. photographs, spot survey, final survey and re-inspection report. Without these reports it cannot be believed that complainant has voluntarily replaced some parts because the surveyor has mentioned in his report Ex.OP1/3 that some parts have been voluntarily replaced by the complainant. As such those parts have not been allowed by the surveyor. So, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the amount mentioned in the head “part not damaged in Final Survey, Not shown to surveyor and not approved by Surveyor, replaced voluntarily and as such not allowed” and “Part not damage replaced voluntarily and as such not allowed.” Moreover one more plea has been taken by the insurance company that the complainant has issued discharge voucher hence it has been presumed that the complainant has admitted the assessment as full and final settlement. We have also perused the documents Ex. OP1/1(Registration letter), Ex. OP1/3 (Motor repair assessment-cum-processing sheet) and Ex. OP1/4 (Discharge Voucher). The perusal of these three documents reveals that the documents have been received by the insurance company on dated 06.02.2017. Meaning thereby the survey report Ex. OP1/3 and Discharge Voucher Ex. OP1/4 was also received on the same day i.e. 06.02.2017 in the insurance Company(opposite party’s office). Meaning thereby, the confidential report of the Surveyor, motor repair assessment report of the surveyor and discharge voucher have been submitted with the insurance company on the same day. It shows that how the surveyor obtained the discharge voucher from the consumers without submitting his report with the insurance company. In fact surveyor is not a final authority for assessment of the loss. The insurance company assessed the loss after receiving the survey report as per the terms and the conditions of the policy. But these documents have been submitted with the insurance company of the same day. This shows that the discharge voucher has not been signed by the consumer/complainant voluntarily. As per “Motor repair assessment-cum-processing sheet” page no. 3/5 of Ex. OP 1/3, the surveyor has not allowed the cost of the parts under the head “part not damaged in Final Survey, Not shown to surveyor and not approved by Surveyor, replaced voluntarily and as such not allowed” amounting to Rs. 4996/- and “Part not damage replaced voluntarily and as such not allowed” amounting to Rs. 12,075/- So, as per our opinion, the wrong assessment has been made by the Surveyor and complainant is also entitled for the alleged amount of Rs.17,071/-.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.17,071/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand seventy one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.05.2018 till its realization and shall also to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.04.2023.
……………………………......
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
