DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/79/2018

Date of Institution : 19.07.2018

Date of Decision : 05.08.2019

Sonu Jindal s/o Sh. Dev Raj Jindal resident of H. No. B-XI-269, Ahata Ram Sahai, Parbhat Cinema Road, Barnala, District Barnala. …Complainant

Versus

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanaula Road, Near Global Honda Show Room, Barnala through its Branch Manager. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. SM Gupta counsel for opposite party. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

1.    The complainant namely Sonu Jindal has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (In short the Act) against M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Barnala. (hereinafter referred as opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that the complainant has purchased an insurance policy for his car bearing No. PB-19-H-7008 which was valid from 5.3.2018 to 4.3.2019. On 30.3.2018 the said car met with an accident at about 12.00 PM at Raikot Road, Barnala while saving a the random animals. The complainant informed the opposite party and on their direction the opposite party placed the car with M/s Zora Singh Denting, Painting and Mechanical Works, Dhanaula Road, Barnala. The opposite party appointed a Surveyor who inspected the vehicle at the workshop. The Proprietor of said workshop prepared an estimate of Rs. 1,25,700/- in the presence of said Surveyor and remarked that other loss will be assessed after opening the vehicle. The said vehicle was repaired by Anoop Singh in the Supervision of Surveyor and charged Rs. 1,07,985/-. But the Surveyor allowed only Rs. 35,450/- vide his report which is false and against the facts. The opposite party deposited Rs. 35,450/- in the account of the complainant which was accepted by him under protest and wrote letter dated 26.6.2018 in this regard. This act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 72,535/- difference of actual expenses incurred and payment made by opposite party alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 30.3.2018 till realization.   

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit and proper. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of jurisdiction, concealment of facts, baseless, not a consumer dispute, maintainability and being false and frivolous.  

4. On merits, it is admitted that car of the complainant met with an accident on 30.3.2018. It is also admitted that opposite party appointed Mr. Yashwinder Goyal as Surveyor. It is further alleged that the rough estimate prepared by Anoop Singh at the instance of the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite party. However, it is submitted that Surveyor submitted his final report alongwith photographs and assessed the loss of Rs. 35,450/- which was deposited in the account of the complainant with his consent. So, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Lastly, it prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of RC as Ex.C-2, copy of policy as Ex.C-3, copy of bills as Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-10, copy of letter as Ex.C-11, copy of courier receipt as Ex.C-12, copy of statement of account as Ex.C-13, affidavit of Anoop Singh as Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party  tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh as  Ex.O.P-1/1, copy of policy as Ex.O.P-1/2, copy of Surveyor report as Ex.O.P-1/3, copy of photo chart as Ex.O.P-1/4 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through.

8. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle of the complainant having No. PB-19-H-7008 was insured by the opposite party vide insurance policy Ex.C-3 from 5.3.2018 to 4.3.2019 for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the car of the complainant met with an accident within the validity period of the policy. It is also admitted between the parties that the opposite party appointed a Surveyor namely Yashwinder Goyal to assess the loss who assessed the loss of Rs. 35,454,/- vide his report Ex.C-10/Ex.OP-1/3. But the complainant mentioned in his complaint and affidavit that he spent Rs. 1,07,985/- on the repair of the vehicle in question and prayed for Rs. 72,535/- on account of difference of actual expenses and payment be made by opposite party alongwith interest.

9. Now the main question before us whether the complainant has proved on the file that he is entitled to the difference of actual expenses and payment made by the opposite party on the basis of the Surveyor report or not ?

10. In the present case the opposite party totally relied upon the report of Surveyor Ex.OP-1/3 vide which he has assessed the loss of Rs. 35,454/- and on the basis of his report the opposite party paid the amount of Rs. 35,454/- to the complainant as full and final settlement of his claim as the opposite party relied upon that the Surveyor report is most important document to assess the loss. The opposite party also filed copy of policy Ex.OP-1/2 in which it is mentioned that the sum assured of the vehicle in question was Rs. 3,50,000/- and validity of the same is 5.3.2018 to 4.3.2019 and it is not in dispute that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident within the currency period of the insurance policy. So, in the present case the only dispute is of the amount of insurance claim. 

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Pradeep Kumar reported in IV (2009) CPJ-46 (SC) held as under.- 

“Insurance Act, 1938- Section 64 UM(2)- Insurance- Assessment of loss- Pre-requisite for settlement of claim- Surveyor's report not last and final word- It may be basis for settlement of claim but neither binding upon Insurer nor Insured- Complainant's claim accepted by Consumer Fora as duly supported by original vouchers, bills and receipts- No interference required in appeal. (Paras 13, 15, 18).”  

12. In view of the above citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we have carefully perused the copies of the bills tendered by the complainant Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9. In our view copies of bills Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-8 are not at all genuine bills as on these documents there is no mention of any GST number or even any bill number. Even on Ex.C-8 there is no date mention, so these bills cannot be consider for assessment of loss. However, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-9 in our view are genuine bills as on Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 GST number and bill number are  duly mentioned and by taking lenient view we also consider Ex.C-9 as on this document the bill number, date and vehicle number are mentioned and total amount of these bills comes to Rs. 98,185/-. So, in our view the loss of the complainant is assessed as Rs. 98,185/- out of which Rs. 35,454/- have already given to the complainant so now the opposite party is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 62,731/-. 

13. In this way, complainant has partly proved on the file that he is entitled to the difference of actual expenses and payment made by the opposite party on the basis of the Surveyor report and by not paying the same there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 

14. As a result of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 62,731/- to the complainant on account of remaining amount of  insurance claim alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum after three months from the date of lodging the claim by the complainant with the opposite party till actual realization and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 3,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  Compliance of order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

5th Day of August 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

           President

 

           (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                Member

 

(Manisha)

Member