Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1437

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mumtaj Ali - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Jasuja

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

First Additional Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.1437 of 2011 

 

                                                          Date of institution: 22.09.2011.   

                                       Date of Decision:   19.03.2015.

 

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8 EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur-302022, Rajasthan (India) through its Manager (Legal), Sh.Anurudh Singh.

                                                      .….Appellant/Opposite party.

                                      Versus

Mumtaj Ali son of Israil Ansari, R/o H.No.21/2, Street No.1, Ram Nagar, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana.

                                                …..…Respondent/Complainant.

 

First Appeal against order dated 16.08.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

Before:-

                Shri J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

                Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

Present:-

                For the appellant    :    Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate

   For respondent    :      Sh.G.S.Verma, Advocate

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

                This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (opposite party in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (complainant in  the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against order dated 16.08.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’) in  Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2011, vide which, the complaint of the complainant was allowed and opposite party was directed to pay Rs.75,000/- in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, Rs.5000/- for mental harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that Sh.Mumtaj Ali complainant filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the OP on the averments that he was the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-10CF-3403 and got it insured with the OP, vide policy No.105029/31/11/000025 dated 03.04.2010.  On 30.07.2010, the said insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and it was badly damaged therein and the same was repaired at the workshop of Sanjay Body at Purnia Bihar, on 22.08.2010 after paying Rs.75000/- as repair charges therefor.  The claim was lodged with the OP by the complainant to this effect.  Surveyor was deputed by the OP for assessing the loss of the claim and subsequently, a cheque of Rs.11,500/- dated 28.09.2010 was received by the complainant, as sent by the OP towards this settlement of claim. It was pleaded that he received the cheque under protest and never got it encashed due to inadequate settlement of the claim amount.  The complainant approached the OP number of times for reconciliation of the claim, but did not succeed in it.  Even an application dated 28.12.2010 was sent to the Grievance Cell, Shri Ram General Insurance Company at Chandigarh, but no action had been taken thereon by the said authority.  Hence, the complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.75,000/- paid by him on account of repair charges along with interest @18% per annum and to pay additional amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

3.             The complaint was contested by OP, who filed the written reply raising preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant was not covered under the definition of Consumer, as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes by him. The District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.  On merits, it was admitted that the vehicle bearing No.HR-38-E-0232 i.e. Ashok Leyland Truck was insured, vide policy No.105029/31/11/000025 for the period from 03.04.2010 till 02.04.2011, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy by the OP.  It was further averred that vehicle was used for commercial purposes solely and was insured as commercial vehicle by the insured and thus, the jurisdiction of the Fora is barred by necessary implication.  The complainant had intentionally violated the terms and conditions of the policy and got the vehicle repaired from unauthorized workshop outside the State, so the alleged bill of the amount of Rs.75000/- dated 22.08.2010 cannot relied upon in anyway.  It was further pleaded that independent surveyor was deputed for the accidental vehicle for assessment of its loss, vide his report dated 25.08.2010, a net loss of Rs.11,500/- was assessed to the vehicle only. Cheque No.071360 dated 28.09.2010 amounting to Rs.11,500/- was paid as full and final in regard to the eventual settlement of the claimant. The claim discharge/satisfaction form was duly signed by the complainant and thereafter, the amount was released to the complainant.  Other allegations of the complainant, as raised in the complaint, were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for by the OP.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.  The OP tendered evidence by placing on record Affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Vishwas Srivastava, its Legal Manager alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the rebuttal evidence thereto. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana, allowed the complaint of the complainant and OP was directed to pay Rs.75,000/- in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, Rs.5000/- for causing mental harassment to complainant besides Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to him. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Ludhiana, the instant appeal has been preferred by the opposite party now appellant against the same.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties  and have gone though the record of the case.

7.             The perusal of the record shows that truck bearing registration No.PB-10CF-3403 was insured under GCCV-Public Carriers other than three wheelers package policy -Zone C (Commercial Vehicle Policy) for the period 03.04.2010 to 02.04.2011 for a sum insured Rs.8,50,000/- after paying the premium of Rs.16,149/-, which is proved on record vide   Ex.R-1.  As per the complainant, the said insured vehicle met with an accident on 30.07.2010 and the same was got repaired from Sanjay Body at Purnia in Bihar on 22.08.2010.  The claim was lodged with the OP, which is proved on record vide Ex.R-2.  The OP deputed the surveyor and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,500/- vide his report dated 25.08.2010 Ex.R-3.  We have perused the motor claim approved sheet Ex.R-4.  The relevant portion is as under :-

 

Assessment of Loss

Sr.	New Parts	Amount	Depreciation	Net Amount
SUR-010	Labour	13000	0	13000
Total				13000
Less Salvage (Non Marine Hull)				1500
Net Loss Assessed				11500

 

8.             On the basis of the surveyor report, an amount of Rs.11500/- was paid to the complainant by the OP, vide cheque No.071360 dated 28.09.2010, which was accepted by the complainant as full and final payment for settlement of the claim by executing the discharge/satisfaction voucher Ex.R-5 without raising any demur.  The complainant had placed on record the repair bill dated 02.08.2010 Ex.C-7 for Rs.1,01,000/-, but he claimed the amount of Rs.75,000/- only.  The vehicle was got repaired from the unauthorized centre in the outside State of Bihar and the bill was issued, which is not authenticated by the Insurance Company at all.  The complainant got the repair from different far off State from an unauthorised service station and it is difficult to place any reliance on the above referred repair bill by us.  This bill is unable to refute the report of the surveyor on the record. The loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.11,500/- which was not rebutted by the complainant by leading any rebuttal evidence thereto.  As the surveyor is an independent person and his report cannot be brushed aside without giving any cogent reason to the contrary. His report is valuable piece of evidence. Since, the complainant did not produce any evidence contrary to the report of the statutory surveyor on the record and has failed to show that the said report is wrong or arbitrary hence, we do not find any ground to proceed against the report of the surveyor by ignoring it.  The District Forum did not properly appreciate the controversy and hence, the order of the District Forum requires modification protanto and the complainant is held entitled for recovery of Rs.11,500/- only as insurance claim, instead of Rs.75,000/-, as claimed by him. 

9.             Sequel to the above discussions, appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and order of the District Forum is modified to that extent.  OP shall be liable to pay Rs.11,500/- along with interest @8% from the date of accident till its realization and other part of the order of the District Forum is upheld and affirmed in this appeal.

10.           The appellant/OP have deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this commission at the time of filing the appeal.  The amount of Rs.11,500/- plus the amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment besides the amount of Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses totaling the amount of Rs.19,500/- be remitted to the complainant  alongwith interest accrued, if any, and remaining deposited amount alongwith interest accrued thereon if any, be remitted by registry to the appellant/OP by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

11.           The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                              (J.S.Klar)

                                                                Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

March    , 2015                                               (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

LB/-                                                                              Member