Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 16.
Instituted on : 10.01.2017.
Decided on : 18.04.2019.
M/s Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Jind Bye-pass Road, Rohtak through it Director Amit Jain.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Banglore.
- Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Director, Hissar.
- Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Pearl Plaza, K-24, 3rd Floor, Plot A.B.C.D., E. Sector-18, NOIDA.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY,MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having policy No.PFC/11231063/H1/03/003975 for covering damage to stock of new and old motor vehicle/cars/properties etc. lying in the stock yard. That on 20.02.2016 the mob gathered during the Jat Reservation movement, caused damage to the stock lying at the stockyard of the complainant and set all the stocks and other properties on fire. That FIR was lodged with Police Station in this regard and OPs were duly intimated. That opposite parties appointed the surveyor to assess the loss. All the necessary documents and information required by surveyor was supplied by the complainant to the surveyor. That complainant firm assessed loss more than Rs.600000/- and submitted the detail of loss of damaged cars to the surveyor but the surveyor is ignoring the genuine claim of the complainant firm. That the complainant is entitled to claim the difference between the cost of new car and sale of repaired car but the respondent vide email dated 26.12.2016 intimated the complainant that they have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.124674/- and are processing the claim. That complainant vide e-mail dated 26.12.2016 has informed the respondent company that he is not going to accept the alleged claim and also served a legal notice to respondents but no reply has been received from the respondents. That the act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.700000/- alongwith interest and cost beside compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that on receiving the intimation of occurrence, opposite party appointed the surveyors and they submitted the detailed report No.6692 dated 15.11.2016 assessing the net amount of loss at Rs.124675/-. That an exaggerated claim of Rs.3555594/- was submitted by the complainant and lateron the same was reduced to Rs.430875/-. But only the reasonable submissions of the complainant have been accepted by the surveyor and the amount of Rs.124675/- was assessed. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C32 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.10.2017. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 11.10.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Through this complaint, the complainant has demanded an amount of Rs.700000/- as damages/repair cost of cars as well as loss due to decreased sale value of damaged cars received by the complainant. In the present case the complainant suffered loss in the cars lying in the stockyard situated near Sunderpur Road, Jind Chowk, Rohtak. This loss suffered during the Jat Reservation movement and the complainant suffered loss in his property and regarding this fact an FIR was got registered. The respondent officials were also intimated regarding the loss. Upon receiving the information the respondent officials deputed Atul Kapoor and Co. as surveyor who assessed the loss in the premises or in the stockyard of the complainant. A bare perusal of the report and other documents shows that as per policy information, the sum insured for stocks was upto Rs.3 crores, Earthquake(Fire and Shock), (STFI Covered) was Rs.3 crores, STFI Covered Rs.3 crores and Floater inclusion Clause for stocks Rs.3crores. It has been admitted by the respondents in their written statement and evidence that as per the surveyor the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.124647/- on account of repair of the vehicles. This amount includes spare parts and labour charges etc. The surveyor report Ex.R4 submitted by the surveyor on dated 15.11.2016 shows that in fact the loss was assessed as Rs.134675/- but after deducting excess clause as Rs.10000/-, the amount comes to Rs.124675/-. As per the report itself at page no.8 of the remarks column the surveyor has admitted that “The above assessment was discussed with the insured, but they were not agreed with the net assessment mainly because they wanted us to accept their revised declaration for salvage value but the same was apparently not logical as explained earlier”.
6. In the present case, the main objection of the complainant is that the vehicles were badly damaged in that incident and the insurance company only wants to give the repair and labour charges. But as per the complainant the value of fresh and new vehicle after damage does not remain the same and the complainant received the decreased sale value of these damaged vehicles. To prove this fact the complainant has placed on record documents Ex.C16, Ex.C18, Ex.C20, Ex.C22, Ex.C24 and Ex.C26. The perusal of these documents itself shows that the complainant has sold these vehicles after considering the vehicles as damaged and the purchaser issued an undertaking to the complainant that they are purchasing the repaired vehicle after a discount of Rs.107811/- on Hyndai grand I-10, Rs.110148/- on Hyundai New I-20, Rs.81944/- on Hyundai New I-20, Rs.162663/- on Hyundai New Verna, Rs.111101/- on Hyundai Xcent and Rs.65000/- on Hyundai New I-20. The total discount given by the complainant comes to Rs.638667/-. Meaning thereby, the complainant suffered loss of above mentioned amount i.e. Rs.638667/- at the time of sale of new/repaired cars damaged at the time of incident. The insurance company objected that he is not liable to pay the subsequent loss suffered by the complainant in the vehicle. Meaning thereby the insurance company is adamant to pay only the amount spent on the repairs of the car but the subsequent loss suffered by the complainant during the sale of these vehicle was not payable by the respondent officials. Moreover, the surveyor report has been submitted by the surveyor before the respondent officials on dated 15.11.2016 whereas all the vehicle have been sold by the complainant in the year of 2017 so this loss could not be assessed previously by the surveyor of the insurance company. Moreover, the perusal of the documents “ANN-2” attached with the surveyor report itself shows that initially an amount of Rs.300000/- was claimed on dated 25.10.2016 on account of decreased value of the new vehicles by the complainant but this request was turned down by the surveyor or the respondent officials and they simply assessed the amount of Rs.6229/- on account of decreased value of the brand new vehicles. But later on after the sale of these damaged vehicles, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.638667/-, meaning thereby this loss should be covered by the respondent officials because the complainant has purchased the four types of policies for Rs.12 crores to cover his property including the stock lying in his yard. The opposite party has only assessed the loss of Rs.124675/- but the complainant refused to accept the same.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant is entitled for the alleged claim of Rs.124675/- on account of repair charges as well as Rs.638667/- on account of loss of decreased value of cars. As such complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.763342/-(Rupees seven lac sixty three thousand three hundred forty two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.10.01.2017 and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant on account of cost of litigation and the compensation for the harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. 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:
18.04.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
