BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 226 of 2015 Date of Institution: 03.06.2015
Date of Decision:23.11.2015
Upkar Singh aged 40 years son of Sardar Amarjit Singh resident of VPO Killian Wali, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka Cell No.97814-82200.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. M/S IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited., 2nd Floor, Opposite Nirankari Bhawan, G.T.Road, Bathinda through its MD/Director.
2. Amit Kumar Mali ( Agent) M/S IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Limited, Near Gaushalla Road, Near Bank of India, Abohar-152116.
3. Arun Makkar (Surveyor) M/S IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Limited., Opposite Jyoti Nursing Home, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar 152116.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh Parkash Makkar Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : Sh Varun Gupta Advocate
For opposite party Nos.2 & 3 : Ex-parte
C.C.No. 226 of 2015 //2//
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got his motor cycle make Royal Enfield insured with opposite party No.1 vide insurance policy bearing No.87660593, which was valid from 09.05.2014 to 08.05.2015 by paying premium of Rs.3645.13 paise for sum insured of Rs.1,56,600/-. It has been pleaded that opposite party No.2 is an agent of opposite party No.1 company and took the premium and issued the necessary insurance cover note, whereas, opposite party No.3 is the authorized surveyor of opposite party No.1. Further it has been pleaded that on 03.08.2014, the complainant was coming to Abohar from Village Killian Wali, Tehsil Abohar and all of a sudden a wild animal came on the road and causing accident of complainant. The complainant received some injuries and the vehicle was badly damaged. In this regard, the complainant informed opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and on the instructions of the opposite parties, the complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of Aman Auto Zone Hanumangarh Road, Abohar. Opposite party Nos. 1& 2 appointed a surveyor namely Sh. Arun Kumar Makkar who carried out the inspection of the vehicle. It has been pleaded that on the repair of the vehicle, the complainant spent an amount of Rs.52,551/- vide bill Nos. 1324 and 1325 dated 23.09.2014. But the opposite parties passed the claim of Rs.34,427/- against the total amount of Rs.52,551/- and the above said amount was credited by the opposite parties in his account. Complainant alongwith
C.C.No. 226 of 2015 //3//
Janak Raj repeatedly approached the opposite parties and requested to pay the remaining insurance claim amount and also issued a legal notice in this regard to the opposite parties, but all in vain. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the remaining insurance claim amount of Rs.18,124/- alongwith interest @18% per annum, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 has appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 took some preliminary objections interalia that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; that a complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant got his vehicle insured with the opposite party No.1 after going through the entire terms and conditions of the policy and got the entire information in vernacular language and only thereafter he paid the requisite premium. It has been pleaded that opposite party No.3 is duly licensed from IRDA and independent person. Further it has been pleaded that after receiving the information from the complainant regarding accident, opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle and after receiving the report from the surveyor regarding assessment of loss, then the company
C.C.No. 226 of 2015 //4//
paid the entire amount i.e. Rs. 34,427/- to the complainant. Further it has been pleaded that the assessment made as per the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, and as per the Indian Motor Tariff by the surveyor, so the complainant is not entitled for any further claim amount from the opposite party. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 09.07.2015 and 15.07.2015 respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has closed evidence on behalf of the complainant by tendering into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP-1/11 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. The insurance of motor cycle of the complainant has been admitted. The accident of motor cycle of the complainant has also been admitted. The grievances of the complainant is that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.52,551/- vide bill no.1324/1325 dated 23.9.2014 for the repair of his vehicle. To prove his version, the complainant has placed on file copy of bills Ex. C-7 and Ex. C-8. From which it is proved that the complainant had spent Rs.52,551/- on the repair of his vehicle. But the opposite parties passed the claim of the vehicle is Rs.34,427/- against the total amount of Rs.52,551/- which the complainant spent for the repair of vehicle and the above said amount was credited by the opposite parties in his account. The complainant also issued a legal notice to the opposite
C.C.No. 226 of 2015 //5//
parties to pay the balance amount, which was duly served to the opposite parties. To prove his version that the complainant has placed on file copy of legal notice Ex. C-10 and copy of postal receipt Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-13. The complainant pleaded in the complaint that he alongwith Janak Raj repeatedly approached the opposite parties and requested them to pay the remaining insurance claim amount, but the opposite parties did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.18,124/-. The version of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant got his vehicle insured with the opposite party No.1 after going through the entire terms and conditions of the policy and got the entire information in vernacular language and only thereafter he paid the requisite premium. It has been pleaded that opposite party No.3 is duly licensed from IRDA. The opposite parties after receiving the information from the complainant regarding accident, opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle and after receiving the report from the surveyor regarding assessment of loss, then the company paid only Rs. 34,427/- to the complainant whereas the complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.52,551/- on the repair of his vehicle. A perusal of bill Ex. C-8 reveals that an amount of Rs.52,551/- has been spent by the complainant on the repair of his motor cycle. As per serial No.1 to 22 of the said bill whereas in final surveyor report Ex. OP-1/3, the items listed in the said bill had not been remarked upon. The surveyor has not assigned any reasons for disallowing the remaining parts mentioned in bill Ex. C-8. The report of the surveyor is vague, cryptic and unreasoned and cannot be relied upon.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses and opposite party No.1 is
C.C.No. 226 of 2015 //6//
directed to pay Rs.18,124/- as remaining claim amount. The present complaint against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed. This order is directed to be complied with by opposite party No.1 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy. File be consigned to the record room
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
23.11.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
