Punjab

Sangrur

CC/109/2017

Bharpur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Gurjit Kaur

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    109

                                                Instituted on:      22.03.2017

                                                Decided on:       18.07.2017

 

Bharpur Singh son of Balkar Singh, resident of Village Noorpura, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office Ecospace Business Park, Block-3B, 2^nd Floor, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkatta-700156 through its General Manager.

2.     Magma Finance Company, Near Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chowk, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri B.S.Phumanwal, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

       

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Bharpur Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of OP  number 1 by getting insured his Balero Maxi Truck bearing registration number PB-13-AF-1285 under cover note number CN17400002/4103/169303 on 21.9.2016 through OP number 2 at Sangrur as the vehicle has been financed by the OP number 2.   The complainant paid the premium of Rs.19,953/- to the Ops.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 4.2.2017 when the complainant was going on his Bolero  from Sangrur to his village Noorpora, there was thick fog on the way near Phaguwala Kanchian and there was very low visibility, as a result of which the vehicle of the complainant struck with the truck which was going ahead to the vehicle of the complainant and damaged badly.  Thereafter the complainant called the surveyor and the vehicle was brought to Raj Vehicles at Sangrur for necessary repairs and the repairer charged an amount of Rs.75,461/- from the complainant, which was paid by the complainant, but the grievance of the complainant is that OP number 1 paid only an amount of Rs.24,252/- by transferring the same in the account of the complainant. The complainant requested the Ops so many times for making the payment of Rs.51,209/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the remaining insurance claim amount of Rs.51,209/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 1, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that  the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has filed the complaint only to get undue benefit and that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question and the same is insured with the OP number 1. It is stated further that the OP appointed the surveyor, who inspected the damaged vehicle and took the photographs and assessed the amount of loss to the tune of Rs.24,253/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as such it is stated that the OP released the amount of Rs.25,252/- to the complainant being fully satisfied.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it has been admitted that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle got financed the same from OP number 2 and the same is insured with the OP number 1. However, any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.  Apart from that, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is further stated that the vehicle in question is being used for commercial purposes as such it has been stated that the complainant does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Lastly, the OP number 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP1/10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 to Ex.Op2/7 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his Bolero Maxi Truck  bearing registration number PB-13-AF-1285 from the OP number 1 through OP number 2 for the period from 21.09.2016 to 20.09.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.19,953/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-2 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 04.02.2017 near Phguwala Kanchian Sangrur and the complainant gave intimation to the OP number 1 about the accident of the vehicle, as such, the OP number 1 appointed Shri Pushpinder Kumar Garg, surveyor and loss assessor, who inspected the vehicle and took photographs and submitted his report by assessing the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.24,253/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy, as is evident from the copy of the motor final survey report dated 30.01.2017, which is on record as Ex.OP1/3 and as such, the OP number 1 has already been paid the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor.  Further the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainant also submitted his consent letter dated 25.1.2017 accepting the amount of Rs.24,253/-, wherein it has been mentioned that he has given his consent voluntarily without any external influence and he is aware of the terms and conditions precedent for the mutually agreed mode of settlement, as is evident from the original consent letter Ex.Op1/7 on record.  Further it is not the case of the complainant that he did not give any such consent to the Op number 1.  This fact is further supported by the affidavit of Shri Sunil Gupta, Assistant Manager (Legal) of OP number 1, which is on record as Ex.Op1/1. On the other hand, the stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.75,461/- on the repairs of the vehicle in question and to prove this fact the complainant has produced on record the copy of the bill, which is on record as Ex.C-8, but we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that he spent an amount of Rs.75,461/-, whereas the OP number 1 has produced on record the survey report Ex.OP1/3, submitted by Shri Pushpinder Kumar Garg, which clearly reveals that he allowed the repairs of the vehicle after taking into consideration the loss to the vehicle.  As such, we are unable to go with the consent of the complainant that he spent an amount of Rs.75,261/- on the repair of the vehicle in question. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 has already paid an amount of Rs.24,252/- to the complainant on 8.2.2017, as is evident from the copy of bank pass book  on record as Ex.C-7. We have also perused the affidavit of the surveyor, Shri Pushpinder Kumar Garg, Ex.OP1/2, wherein it is clearly stated that after getting instructions from the insurance company, he visited the repairer and inspected the insured vehicle and taken photographs and prepared the report thereafter and assessed the net value of loss of Rs.24,253/- , as such, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong on the part of the Ops and the claim has already been settled and the due amount of the claim has been paid to the complainant. Reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission pronounced in Ashish Kumar Jaiswal versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd and others 2017(1) CPJ 529, wherein it has been held that the report of surveyor/surveyors appointed under provisions of Insurance Act are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient ground not to agree with the assessment made by them, as no specific shortcoming is pointed out in the surveyors report and the petitioner has failed to put forward any cogent reasons to dispute the surveyors report and hence there is no reason to reject it and the interference was declined.   The same is the position in the present case, as the complainant has not alleged any specific reason to discard the survey report of the surveyor.   The same is the position in another case namely  IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Beena Raghav 2015(3) CPJ 75 (NC). wherein it has been held that the report prepared by the surveyor was of significant and evidentiary value and cannot be ignored and dismissed as such by saying that “assessed loss” cannot be considered trustworthy without giving valid reason.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        July 18, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member