Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/24/2020

Sunil Sangwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Complainant in Person

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL           COMMISSION,CHARKHI DADRI

    

RBT CC No.24 of 18.02.2020

Complaint Case No.at DC Bhiwani 259 of 2015

                     Date of Institution  at DC Bhiwani: 09.09.2015

Date of Decision: 05.06.2024

 

Sunil Sangwan son of Shri Umed Singh, resident of village Charkhi, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

..Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Magma HDI General Insurance Co. having its registered office at 24, Part Street, Kolkata-700016 through its authorized signatory.

2. Magma HDI General Insurance Company, Branch office at SCO No.13, Sector-3, Karnal, through its Manager.

                                  ..Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

Before- SH. MANJIT SINGH NARYAL…………………………PRESIDENT.

SH. DHARAM PAL RAUHILLA………….……………MEMBER.

 

Argued by:Sh.R.K.Badal, Adv. for complainant.
           Sh.Rajender Verma, Adv. for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

          Shri Sunil Sangwan (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) had filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) originally at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now District Commission)Bhiwani. The said complaint was dismissed in default. However, pursuant to filing appeal by the complainant. Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula had set aside the order of District Forum and directed to issue notice to the parties and proceed as per law on the complaint. Subsequently the complaint was transferred to this Commission which was registered on 18.02.2020 and assigned no. RBT CC No. 24/2020. It was mentioned in that complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of Scorpio bearing registration no.HR-19C-8181.  It was also submitted that unfortunately, on 04.12.2013 at about 7.30 pm, the above said insured vehicle while driving by Shri Natwar son of Shri Umed Singh, resident of village Charkhi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri met with an accident  near village Paintawas. FIR vide no.462 dated 08.12.2013 was registered with PS Sadar Dadri.  Intimation regarding the accident was given to the OP as vehicle was insured with the OP vide policy no.P0014100018/4101/158122 which was valid for the period w.e.f. 03.07.2013 to 02.07.2014.Thereafter, the claim bearing no. C/14/100003/4101/2/5045901/1 (Claim no. C/14/100003/4101/2/05045901 Annexure R3) was lodged. It was alleged that on the assurance of insurance company, the damaged vehicle was taken to the workshop for the purpose of conducting the survey and assessing the loss caused to the damaged vehicle and cost of repairing thereof. The complainant was obsessed to get this damaged vehicle repaired out of his pocket and spent Rs. 5,16,103/- towards repair charges  of the damaged vehicle as per RO bill No. RBR15C000166 dated 29.11.2014 for Rs.5,16,103/- raised by authorized dealer of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. viz. Supreme Mobiles Ltd. Loharu Road, Bhiwani. The complainant visited to the office of OPs and approached to appoint an independent surveyor for the survey of the damaged vehicle. Pursuant to that a survey was conducted from Sh. Pardeep K.Gupta, Surveyor, Loss Assessor & Chartered Engineer who had assessed the loss. All the documents were supplied by the complainant to the surveyor and OPs but despite that the OPs had repudiated the lawful claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.03.2015.  After that the complainant served a legal notice dated 08.06.2015 through his counsel Sh. Satender Sheoran, Advocate to get the requisite payment but all in vain.  The complainant had alleged the repudiation of his claim was wrong and illegal. So, the complainant had come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.5,16,103/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses besides any other relief which this commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.        Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement. The OPs in written statement took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi and suppression of material facts.  It is submitted that on receipt of the intimation about the accident, the insurance company deputed an independent surveyor and loss Assessor shri Pardeep K. Gupta. The insurance company wrote letter dated 13.02.2014 to the complainant vide which  he was required to start repair work and to supply the necessary documents viz. claim form, copy of RC and also to provide the bills of repairs so as to enable the company to process the claim. Reminder dated 25.03.2014 was sent to him but to no effect. It is averred that complainant was asked to supply the documents as mentioned in the letter to the surveyor but the complainant did not supply the requisite documents. It was made clear in this letter that if the documents were not supplied within seven days from the date of letter, it would be deemed that he was not interested in the claim. The complainant failed to supply the requisite documents. Meanwhile the Surveyor furnished the final survey report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,76,160/- dated 15.06.2014 (Annexure R-2). It was averred that complainant failed to supply the requisite documents despite repeated requests so the claim file was closed as “no claim” by the competent authority. The complainant however, requested for reopening of his claim file but again failed to produce the necessary documents and as such request was declined.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and evidence of the complainant was closed on 02.02.2023.

4.        Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5 and closed the evidence on 14.07.2023.

5.                   We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire material available on record thoroughly and carefully.

6.        In the present case, the OPs have admitted that the vehicle no.HR-19C-8181 was insured with them for the period w.e.f. 03.07.2013 to 02.07.2014 vide policy no. P0014100018/4101/158122 (Ex.C2/Annexure R1).  The OPs have also admitted that the complainant has lodged the claim of the insured vehicle and the same was registered vide claim no.C/14/100003/4101/2/05045901.

7.        The plea of the complainant is that the vehicle was insured with OPs vide insurance policy which was valid and effective for the period w.e.f. 03.07.2013 to 02.07.2014 for sum insured  of Rs.4,40,000/- (Ex.C2) and the same met with an accident on 04.12.2013 during the validity of the insurance policy. The vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the said accident and he had placed on record the copy of bills Ex.C5 issued by Supreme Mobiles Limited, Loharu Road Bhiwani for Rs.5,16,103 (Ex.C5).  Regarding the accident, FIR no.462 dated 08.12.2013(Ex.C3) was lodged with PS Sadar Dadri but the OPs has denied the lawful claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.        We have perused the surveyor report Anneuxre.R-2 dated 15.06.2014 submitted by Shri Pardeep K. Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor appointed by the OPs.  The surveyor had assessed the net liability of the insurance company as Rs.2,76,160/- against estimated of Rs. 5,41,601.85 and claimed amount of Rs.5,16,103/-. In our view, the complainant is only entitled to get the amount of Rs. 2,76,160/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Annexure.R-2. The Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission in various authoritative decisions have held that the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.

9.        The plea of the complainant is that he is entitled to get the claim of Rs.5,16,103/- on loss on the basis of bill Ex.C5 issued by Supreme Mobiles Limited, Loharu Road Bhiwani. However, in view of manufacturing date of the vehicle i.e. June 2007 and fact that in terms  of insurance policy and IRDA guidelines depreciation  is  providing depending upon age of the vehicle and insured declared value of the vehicle being Rs. 4,40,000/- the same cannot be considered for payment in entirety. Accordingly to give verdict on the complaint, it would be justifiable  to rely upon the report dt.15.06.2014 (Annexure R2) of the  surveyor viz. Pardeep K.Gupta, Surveyor, Loss Assessor & Chartered Engineer having Central Excise Reg. No. 368/ST/RTK/Surveyor/2001, who has assessed repairing cost/insurance company’s liability  as Rs. 2,76,160/-

10.       Thus, we hold that the complainant is only entitled to get only a sum of Rs.2,76,160/- (Rs.Two lakh Seventy six thousand one hundred sixty only) as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Annexure.R-2.  Accordingly, the OPs are directed to make the payment of Rs. 2,76,160/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from 09/09/2015 being the date of  filing complaint with District Forum Bhiwani till the date of payment to the complainant.

11.       The OPs are also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousand only) for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony and harassment and also to pay Rs.5500/- (Rs.five thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses.

12.       The above order be complied within 45days from the date of this order failing which, the above said amount shall fetch simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident.

13.       With these observations and findings, the present complaint stands partly allowed.

14.    This order be communicated to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record-room.

Announced:                            

Dated:05.06.2024