DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Jatinder Singh Dhillon s/o Sh. Sukhchain Singh Dhillon, R/o Village Meerpur, Police Station Mubarakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali.

              ---Complainant

Vs

[1]  M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 350-351-352, Sector 34-A, 1^st Floor, Chandigarh – 160034, through its Managing Director.

[2]  M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Limited, Bigjos Tower, 2^nd Floor, Netaji Subhash Place, Pritampura, Delhi – 110034, through its Managing Director.

[3]  M/s Premier Motor Garage, 47, Indl. Area, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. J.C. Kapoor, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Tajender K. Joshi, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.        The Complainant had taken a motor vehicle insurance policy for his Mitsubishi Lancer LXD car bearing Regn. No. HR-36-L-0060, from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, valid from 10.10.2010 to 09.10.2011, after paying the requisite premium.

          Unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident on 2.5.2011 in the area of Police Station Chamkaur Sahib (Punjab). And F.I.R. No.61 dated 2.5.2011 was lodged (Annexure C-II). The vehicle was got repaired from the Opposite Party No.3. An invoice of Rs.1,57,236/- was raised for the repair of the said car, which was paid by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 directly to Opposite Party No.3 (Details Annexure C-v).

          The Complainant has stated that he also paid a sum of Rs.92,000/- from his own pocket, as Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 refused to make this payment (Annexure C-VI), which was for a job of engine repair. The Complainant has submitted that he has not willfully damaged the engine of his vehicle and, therefore, the amount of Rs.92,000/- should also have been paid by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The Complainant hence served a legal notice upon the Opposite Parties, asking for the payment, which was not replied by them.

          The Complainant has thus, filed the instant complaint with the allegations of deficiency, fraud and cheating by Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. The Complainant has prayed for payment of Rs.92,000/- along with interest, besides compensation and costs of litigation.    

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 06.01.2012.

3.        The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint reply have stated that the vehicle was insured subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy and the insurance company is liable to pay the claim as per Surveyor’s report only. Opposite Parties have further stated that when the Complainant, had given intimation about the accident, the answering Opposite Parties had, immediately, appointed Er. Saravjeet Singh, as Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,54,775/-, out of which Rs.1,13,209/- was insurer’s liability and Rs.42,566/- was insured’s liability (Surveyor Report Annexure R-2). But as the Complainant has taken add on (Dep Gap cover) Policy so the insurance company paid the whole amount of Rs.1,54,775/- to the repairer of the vehicle. Further, the Complainant has also given a satisfaction letter for the same to the insurance company (Annexure R-3).

          Opposite Parties have further submitted that the Surveyor has mentioned in his report that damage to the engine and its parts are not allowed being subsequential loss and hence, not covered under Condition No.4(a) of the Policy. Denying all other allegations, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        We have heard the learned counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; Opposite Party No.3 already ex-parte; and have perused the record, along with the written submissions filed on behalf of the complaint.  

6.        The Complainant has already been paid a sum of Rs.1,54,775/- against the Policy issued by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. However, a sum of Rs.92,000/- has been denied to him, for which he has filed the present complaint. Even though Annexure C-VI is a receipt from the Opposite Party No.3 in the name of the Complainant, the work done against which this payment has been made, is not part of the record. For making the aforesaid payment, the Opposite Parties have placed reliance on Surveyor’s Report, according to which a sum of Rs.1,54,775/- has been allowed. With regard to the further claim of Rs.92,000/-, the Surveyor has observed as under: -  

“(d)  Damages to Engine and its parts not allowed (aprox. Rs.90,000.00) being subsequential loss and is not covered as per Condition No.4a of Policy.”

7.        Annexure R-3 is the satisfaction letter issued by the Complainant, wherein he has accepted the amount of Rs.1,54,775/-. In the said satisfaction letter, the Complainant has categorically stated that the amount of Rs.1,54,775/- be paid directly to the repairer, so that he can take delivery of his car. The settlement has been accepted as full and final. 

8.        The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777 has held:-

 “Insurance Act, 1938 – S.64-UM – Surveyor/ Loss assessor’s report – Weightage to be given – Held, though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report – No infirmity found in Surveyor’s report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report.”

          The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) has held: -

“….Surveyor’s report being important piece of evidence, to be given weight and relied upon, unless proved unreliable.”

          In an another case Dabirudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that:-

“…….Surveyor’s report being important document, cannot be easily brushed aside.”

          It is thus clear from the above rulings that the Surveyor’s report is final, unless challenged by either the Complainant or the Opposite Party with specific contentions and averments. Neither the Complainant, nor the Opposite Party, in the present case, have filed any written objections to the surveyor’s report. Hence, for all purposes the report is final and binding on both the parties. 

9.        In the given situation, it is safe to deduce that nothing is now payable to the Complainant in view of the fact that he has not challenged the surveyor’s report. Also, the Complainant has given a satisfaction note for full & final settlement to the Opposite Parties, which is on record. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

10.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th October, 2012.                                              

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER