Punjab

StateCommission

FA/552/2014

United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naresh Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Parminder Singh & Paul S. Saini

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                                        2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

FIRST APPEAL No. 552 of 2014

 

Date of Institution: 12.05.2014

   Date of Decision:     05.02.2015

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mansa Gaushala Road, Mansa through its duly constituted attorney Dr. S.K. Takyar, Manager

…..Appellant/opposite party

VERSUS

 Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh. Kaur Sain, Resident of Gera Laboratory Wali Gali, Water Works Road, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa.

 

…..Respondent/complainant

First Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.

Before:-

 

            Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

 

Present:

 

            For the appellant                :           Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate

            For the respondent             :           Sh. Arun Chandra, Advocate

 

 

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

            This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party (hereinafter referred as “OP”) against the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (hereinafter called as the “District Forum”) in complaint No. 227 of 12.12.2013 vide which the complaint was accepted and the opposite party was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-  to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which 9% interest will be applicable on the above said amount from the date of order till its realization.

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed the complaint against the OP on the averments that his Maruti Car bearing No. PB-31-H-8325 was insured with the OP for the period from 15.04.2013 to 14.04.2014 and the insurance was without depreciation.The IDV value for the said vehicle was Rs. 6,35,000/-.The said car met with an accident on 28.06.2013.FIR No. 12 dated 01.08.2013 was got registered in police post, Mahlan, District Sangrur.The car was badly damaged in the accident.Information regarding the accident was given to the OP immediately.OP appointed its surveyor to survey on the spot.The complainant took his car to Max Auto showroom, Sangrur for repair as per the direction of the surveyor.Max Auto prepared one estimate for Rs. 4,80,277/- which was given to the surveyor.On the basis of this estimate, the surveyor asked the complainant to get the car repaired.The complainant handed over the possession of the car to the company under the supervision of the surveyor.He also completed all the formalities pertaining to the claim.The car was fully repaired.Company received Rs. 4,00,000/- and handed over the car to the complainant.The bill of the said amount was issued by Max Auto.The damaged parts were deposited with the OP.It was alleged that the OP gave the blank stamped papers by writing Rs. 2,80,000/- and asked him to put his signatures.He told the OP that the damage of the car was to be extent of Rs. 4,85,000/- but the OP stressed that unless the letter was signed, no claim would be issued.It was further alleged that the OP intentionally did not take supplementary estimate from the surveyor because the surveyor initially prepared the estimate of Rs. 2,80,000/-.As per the direction by the OP, no such estimate was prepared after opening the damaged car.In this manner, the OP inconvenience with the surveyor was harassing the complainant and did not clear the claim even after 6 months.The complainant had suffered physical, mental and financial harassment.Hence the complaint, seeking directions to the OP to pay Rs. 4,85,000/-, Rs. 25000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The complaint was contested by the OP who filed written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complainant was not the consumer of OP within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, he had no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint, the complaint was false and vexatious and the same was filed to harass the OP.The complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicles Act, and that the complaint was bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the parties.On merits, it was admitted that after receiving the intimation from Naresh Kumar, OP deputed the surveyor and the loss was assessed through Sh. Bhupesh Bhardwaj and final survey was done by M/s Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Pvt. Ltd who submitted their report and accordingly the claim of Rs. 2,80,000/- was approved.The complainant was accordingly advised vide letter dated 12.12.2013 to issue the bill discharge voucher to OP but the complainant did not submit the same.It was further submitted that the claim of Rs. 2,80,000/- was correctly assessed about the damage to the vehicle.It was admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured for the period from 15.04.2013 to 14.04.2014.No amount to the extent of Rs. 4,85,000/- was liable to be paid as the loss was only to the extent of Rs. 2,80,000/- after making necessary deductions under the policy and the OP was ready to pay the same subject to submitting the discharge voucher.After completion of repairs, the supplementary estimates cannot be considered.Moreover, the complainant was duly informed that as per the report on the basis of physical verification submitted on the basis of initial estimate submitted to the OP and that the revised estimate cannot be submitted after the repair of the vehicle. The complainant himself was negligent in submitting the documents and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

3. Parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions.

4. The complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of cover note Ex. C-2, copy of acceptance letter Ex. C-3, copy of D.D.R. Ex. C-4, copy of service estimate Ex. C-5, copy of bill dated 17.09.2013 Ex. C-6, copy of letter dated 01.10.2013 Ex. C-7, copy of bill dated 12.8.2013 Ex. C-8, copy of receipts Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10.

   6.         On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Vijay Kumar Garg, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ex. OP-1, Motor Survey report Ex. OP-2, copy of private car package policy Ex. OP-3, Job card retail invoice dated 12.08.2013 Ex. OP-4, Motor Survey Report-Final dated 24.08.2013 Ex. OP-5, letter dated 18.09.2013 Ex. OP-6, photographs Ex. OP-7, Office Note Ex. OP-8, letter dated Ex. OP-9, mail dated 07.11.2013 Ex. OP-10, letter dated 12.12.2013 Ex. OP-11, Service estimate Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence.

   7.         The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings and evidence on record produced by the parties, accepted the complaint of the complainant in terms stated above.

   8.         Aggrieved by this order, the appellant/OP has filed the appeal on the grounds that District Forum completely fell in error in directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant despite the fact that the liability of the appellant insurance company could not exceed        Rs. 2,80,000/- as the amount of loss was assessed by the surveyor.  The complainant refused to accept the claim of Rs. 2,80,000/- as he did not submit the discharge voucher so as to enable the appellant to release the claim.  The learned District Forum had further erred in discarding the report of the surveyor so far it relates to the assessment of the loss to the vehicle despite the fact that the assessment of loss made by the surveyor absolutely in consonance with the terms and conditions of the policy and it is a settled law that the surveyor report is an important document and as such cannot be brushed aside without any cogent evidence to the contrary.  The District Forum further erred in awarding the interest @ 9% in the event of defaulting the making the payment within the period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order despite the fact that there was absolutely deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  It was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the order of the District Forum be set-aside.

   6.         We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties, carefully perused the evidence on record and heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length.

   7.         The complainant got his Maruti Car bearing No. PB-37-H-8325 insured with the OP for the period from 15.04.2013 to 14.04.2014 under Private Car Package Policy which is proved on record Ex. OP-3.  This insurance was without depreciation and its IDV value was Rs. 6,35,000/-.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint that his car met with an accident on 28.06.2013.  DDR No. 12 dated 01.08.2013 was got recorded in police post Mehlan, District Sangrur which is proved on record Ex. C-4.  As per DDR, the car met with an accident on 29.06.2013 but the OP has not challenged the date of accident or delay in recording the DDR.  OP had deputed Sh. Bhupesh Bhardwaj as surveyor for spot survey and he submitted his report on 08.07.2013 without giving any estimate of repair of the car Ex. OP-2.  The car was taken to Max Auto Sangrur which is an authorized service centre.  The complainant got estimate prepared from Max Auto which is Ex. C-5 on the file.  This estimate was prepared on 01.07.2013 for Rs. 4,80,277.55 vide customer ID No. 1311195389.    Perusal of the record shows that after the repair of the car of the complainant, the final bill was submitted by Max Auto for Rs. 4,00,085- which is proved on record Ex. C-8.  We have also perused Matrix Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor report Ex. OP-5.  The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

               Summary of Assessment

                                                               Estimated                   Assessed

               Total Labour Charges          37455.20                   31837.20

               Total Cost of Parts           348303.00                  252019.99

                                                            385758.20                    283857.19

               Less Excess                                                                   3000.00

               Less Depreciation                                                              0.00

               Net Amount Payable                                                280857.19

               Expected Salvage Value                                             5000.00

    

   8.         From the above surveyor report reveals that final surveyor has disallowed number of items but without giving any reasoning.  On the other hand, the complainant paid Rs. 4 lac to Max Auto Service Centre which is proved on record vide receipt Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10.  The policy obtained for non deduction of depreciation on any spare part.  So, the deductions made by the surveyor are against the terms and conditions of the policy.

    9.                    From the above discussion, we conclude that the appellant was not justified in reducing the claim amount of the complainant.  The correct findings were recorded by the District Forum and we do not find any ground to upset those findings and order of the District Forum is upheld.  There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 

   10.                   The appellant had deposited Rs. 25000/- and Rs. 2,55,000/- with this Commission. Both these amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon be refunded by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days subject to stay, if any, by the Higher Fora/Court. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

   11.                   The arguments were heard on 23.01.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

    

                                                               (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN)

                                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                          

    

                                                                           (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                       MEMBER

    

                                                              

   February 05 , 2015

    

   Rupinder