BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Avtar Singh s/o Sh.Bachan Singh r/o H.No.1851, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL,                                PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,                  MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. S.S.Bains, Adv. for complainant.

Ms.Deepali Malhotra, Proxy counsel for Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OPs

                     --

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

             The complainant namely Sh.Avtar Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the Complainant got his Chevrolet Tavera insured with the OP vide cover note dated 28.09.2008 for the period from 28.09.08 to 27.09.2009  for IDV of Rs.7,24,565/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on the intervening night of 3/4.4.2009 when the same was being driven by Sh.Charanjit Singh.  The DDR No.21 dated 23.04.2009 was lodged with P.S. Sector 34, Chandigarh.

              As per the complainant, the vehicle was taken to Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh for its repairs who started repairs on the instructions of the OP and raised the bill dated 31.07.2009 for Rs.4,58,958/-. It has been averred that OP released the claim of Rs.2,91,458/- only to Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh  against Rs.4,58,958/-. Consequently, the complainant requested the OP to release the balance claim but to no effect. Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant paid the remaining amount of Rs.1,17,500/- and got released the vehicle from Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh. The complainant further alleged that due to non-releasing of the vehicle for want of payment, he suffered financial loss for which OP is liable to compensate, hence, this complaint.

2]           OP in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to the insurance policy and  accident of the vehicle pleaded that on intimation regarding the accident, Sh.Rajesh Wadhwan, surveyor vide his report dated 05.09.2009 assessed the loss to the vehicle in question to Rs.3,02,051.27P. Thereafter, Sh.Sanjeev Sethi, Surveyor and loss Assessor was appointed to re-inspect the vehicle who submitted his report dated 30.09.09 (Annexure R-4). As per the inspection report, the salvage for some of the parts like engine mounting, hand brake wire, lamp assembly, mirror etc. were not produced and therefore the claim case of the complainant was forwarded to competent authority who finally approved the claim of the complainant for Rs.2,91,484/- and the same was rightly released to M/s Dynamic Motors as per the terms and conditions of the cashless insurance policy. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           The other facts are admitted. The only point which calls decision from this Forum is that whether the complainant  is entitled for the amount of Rs.6,05,000/- as damages, repairs charges along with interest etc. or he has to be paid as per the assessment made by the surveyor.

6            The complainant has produced on record the credit invoice to the tune of Rs.4,58,958/-. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced on record the receipt or the affidavit of the authorized person to prove that the payment of Rs.4,58,958/- has been actually made to Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh. On the contrary, the OP has produced on record the surveyor reports (Annexure R-3 and R-4) and the perusal of the same makes it clear that the surveyor has assessed the damage to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.2,91,484/- It is not disputed that the amount of Rs.2,91,484/- as assessed by the surveyor has not been released to M/s Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh  as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is an admitted fact that the policy in question was cashless and therefore, the payment of Rs.2,91,484/- was made directly to M/s Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh, which is not bad in the eyes of law.

7.           It is settled proposition of law that the surveyor’s report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any cogent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the report of the surveyor is to be accepted as the surveyor is an expert and also an independent person to assess the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant. Thus, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant has been rightly released to M/s Dynamic Motors, Chandigarh  on the basis of the surveyor report. Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Company reported in III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC)

8.           In view of the foregoing findings, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OP. Hence, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

9.           The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.