Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/692

Tejpal LSilngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 692 of 03.12.2015

Date of Decision            :   30.05.2016

 

Tejpal Singh Dhillon son of Shri Gurcharan Singh, resident of Ward No.13, Bhagwanpura Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata 700071, through its Manager.

2.National Insurance Company Limited, SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Regional Manager.

3.National Insurance Company Limited, registered Office at Atam Park, Link Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :           Sh.Manprinder Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :           Sh.D.R.Rampal, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Tejpal Singh Dhillon filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act”) against OPs, by claiming that he purchased a motor Car (Mahindra XUV) bearing registration No.PB-10-EA-8902 from M/s Dada Motors, Ludhiana for an amount of Rs.13,46,664/- on 12.01.2013 vide invoice No.INV13A001466. That car was got insured with OPs through branch at Atam Nagar, Link Road, Ludhiana vide policy cover Note No.401300/31/12/6100003875 dated 12.01.2013 with insured declared value as Rs.12,79,331/-. That car met with an accident on 30.5.2013 at Dausa. DDR No.340 dated 8.6.2013 was registered at P.S.Sadar, Dausa, Jaipur(Rajasthan). Complainant took the car to the workshop at E-13, Near Poddar Pigment, Sitapur, Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Surveyor of OPs company inspected the car in question at Mahindra Workshop at Sitapur above referred. Said surveyor assessed the estimated loss at Rs.5,50,000/- to 6 lac against the IDV of the car at Rs.12,79,331/-. Said surveyor called upon the complainant to get the car repaired from the workshop of Mahindra at Jaipur, Rajasthan. As per IRDA Rules, in case, the repair costs of the vehicle exceeds 75% of the IDV value, then the vehicle comes under the category of total loss, due to which, owner of the vehicle entitled to the IDV value of the vehicle. Estimated repair costs of the vehicle was assessed at Rs.16,87,069.95P by the Manager of Auto World workshop situate at E-13, Near Poddar Pigment, Sitapur, Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Despite this, surveyor insisted to get the car repaired from the said workshop at the costs of Rs.5,50,000/- to Rs.6 lac. Complainant has to purchase another car for his daily use on loan for which he has to pay two installments. It is claimed that due to negligence of OPs surveyor, complainant stood over burdened and even harassed. Despite legal notice dated 2.4.2014 served through counsel Sh.Manprinder Singh, Advocate upon Ops, the matter not resolved and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, reimbursement of Rs.12,79,331/-, the insured declared value of the car along with interest @18% p.a. thereon sought. Directions also sought against Ops for calling upon them to pay compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment. In this way, complainant has sought compensation of Rs.16 lacs on account of the above said acts of OPs. Besides, directions to pay the amount of rent of workshop @Rs.300/- per day w.e.f.31.5.2013 till realization sought.

2.            In written reply submitted by OPs,it is pleaded interalia as if complaint in the present form is not maintainable; complaint is bad due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties because OP1 is not a necessary party; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because of suppression of material facts; intricate question of law and facts are involved requiring elaborate evidence and as such, matter can be decided by Civil Court only. Admittedly, the insurance policy w.e.f.12.1.2013 to 11.1.2014 was purchased by the complainant and the parties are alleged to be governed by the terms and conditions of this policy. Claim is to be paid as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that appointed surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.5,50,000/- to Rs.6 lacs. Rather, the appointed surveyor called upon the complainant number of times to co-operate with him by submitting the requisite documents. Even the said surveyor sent a registered letter dated 12.11.2013 to the complainant demanding certain required documents, but  complainant failed to submit those documents. Surveyor submitted report by assessing the loss of the vehicle independently on net of salvage basis at Rs.9,29,000/-. After receipt of the survey report, OP3 issued notice dated 3.3.2014 for calling upon the complainant as to why he has not replied the letter dated 12.11.2013 sent by the surveyor. Reminder dated 12.3.2014 was sent to the complainant by OP3, but the complainant submitted vague reply dated 14.3.2014(received by OP3 on 18.3.2014). Reply to the notice got served by the complainant through counsel was sent through Sh.Gurjit Singh Kalyan, Advocate by the Ops. True facts were disclosed in that reply. Through that reply, complainant was called upon to contact Ops for early processing/settlement of the claim. That reply was duly received by the complainant, but the complainant failed to cooperate with the surveyor and OPs, due to which, matter is still pending for disposal. Driving license of complainant was got verified by Ops through Sh.Madan Singh, Advocate from concerned Licensing Authority. That Advocate submitted verification report dated 18.12.2013. RC of the car in question was also got verified by Sh.Gurvinder Pal Singh, surveyor, who submitted verification report dated 5.3.2014. Negligence and deficiency in service lays with the complainant and as such, complainant estopped by his own act and conduct from filing this complaint. Rather, complaint is alleged to be pre-mature. Each and every other averment of complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22 and thereafter, he along with his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Devinder Grover, Deputy Manager of OPs, Ex.RB of Er.Swadesh Kumar Dhamija, the appointed surveyor along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R36 and thereafter, counsel for OPs closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for the parties. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, the insured car in question met with an accident, due to which, surveyor was appointed by the OPs. It is vehemently contented by the counsel for the complainant that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- to 6 lac, despite the fact that estimated costs of repair is Rs.16,87,069.95P as revealed by report Ex.C12 of the workshop, from where the vehicle in question to be got repaired. Even if estimated costs of repair may be put at Rs.16,87,069.95P, despite that after going through para no.5 of the complaint, along with contents of insurance policy cover note Ex.C2, it is made out that the insured declared value of the vehicle is Rs.12,79,331/-. So, virtually the complainant by getting Ex.C12 prepared  wants  to  encash  more amount than    that of the insured declared value. The plea taken in the paras no.4, 6 and 7 of the complaint are not correct that surveyor assessed the repair costs at Rs.5,50,000/- to 6 lacs only. That plea has been refuted through written statement by claiming that surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.9,29,000/-. The plea taken in the written statement borne from the contents of survey report Ex.R5, where actually net                liability on net loss assessed at Rs.9,29,000/-. So, plea taken in the complaint is false that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.5,50,000/- to 6 lacs only.

7.       Certainly, loss has to be assessed and payment of the insured amount to be made as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 are the copies of insurance cover notes, whereas Ex.C4 is the copy of police report showing as if police proceedings initiated qua the accident in question. Legal notice Ex.C5 got served by the complainant through counsel through postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, which was replied by OPs as borne from copy of reply Ex.R35 and postal receipt Ex.R36.

8.                It is consistant stand of OPs that appointed surveyor tried to contact the complainant several times for processing/settlement of the claim of the complainant, but the complainant never responded to the surveyor and registered letter in that respect was sent to the complainant is the case of OPs. That case of OPs is fully believable because copy of notice sent by the surveyor on 12.11.2013 produced on record as Ex.R2. This notice not only sent by the OPs to the complainant through registered post on 13.12.2013, but even to the financer i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce is a fact borne from perusal of postal receipts Ex.R3 and Ex.R4. Through Ex.R2, complainant was called upon to arrange for the verification of the original documents like RC, DL and even he was called upon to intimate about his preference of his choice for settlement on repair, net, total loss basis. Through Ex.R2, complainant was disclosed that in case, he did not respond to this notice, then surveyor will be constrained to submit an independent assessment report of the limitation of liability. Despite this notice, complainant did not respond and that is why, the surveyor prepared independent report Ex.R5 dated 30.12.2013. So, fault lays with the complainant in not responding to the letter Ex.R2 sent by the surveyor. Surveyor inspected the vehicle and collected the photographs, copies of which are produced on record as Ex.R6 to Ex.R25. Even Ops got the verification of driving license of complainant (Ex.R26) through report Ex.R27 of counsel Sh.Madan Singh, Advocate. That fact borne from the         report of Sh.Madan Singh, Advocate Ex.R28. Verification of certificate of registration Ex.R29 through Sh.Gurvinder Pal Singh, surveyor and loss assessor got conducted is a fact borne from Ex.R30 and Ex.R31. So, Ops have       performed all their duties  that were required on their part, despite the fact that complainant did not respond to the surveyor.

9.                Ex.R32 is the letter dated 3.3.2014 sent by the OPs to the complainant for settling the claim. Complainant was called upon to submit the reply within 10 days from the date of receipt of letter, failing which, it will be presumed as if he has nothing to submit in support of his claim. Through Ex.R32, it was disclosed to the complainant that now company will proceed at its own, in case complainant does not respond. Similar reminder Ex.R33 dated 12.3.2014 was sent by the Ops to the complainant and reply of the same was sent by the complainant to Ops through letter Ex.R34. If in the complaint, it is mentioned that surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.5,50,000/- to Rs.6 lac, then to the contrary in the reply Ex.R34, it is         pleaded by the complainant as if surveyor assessed the loss between Rs.3.5 lac to Rs.4 lac. So, plea taken in the complaint is contrary to the contents of Ex.R34 in this respect. In view of this documentary evidence produced on record by the Ops, submissions of counsel for Ops has force that the complainant himself remained non cooperative, due to which, claim could not be finally settled. However, technicalities must not come in the way of granting due relief and as such, in case, complainant failed to respond to the letters sent by the surveyor and Ops, despite that Ops were bound to assess the amount of compensation receivable by the complainant because of the admitted fact that the accident in question took place and the surveyor was appointed. To that extent, deficiency in service on the part of OPs is there, but the same is because of non co-operative attitude of      complainant. So, if at all the complainant suffered loss due to claim for parking charges, then complainant has to be blamed for that. So, complainant is not entitled to any amount, which may be charged from him on account of rent of car garage /workshop. As the documents are available on record and even insurance company has to process the documents required to settle the claim and as such, directions needs  be issued to the Ops to finalize the insurance claim in question of the complainant within specified period.

10.              As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will finalize the insurance claim of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order provided the complainant also  appears before the surveyor and Ops as and when  called  through written notice. Keeping in          view the above discussion and facts in mind, compensation for mental harassment not allowed because fault lay with the complainant in not responding to the reminders/letters sent by the surveyor and Ops. However, fault lay with the OPs in not finalizing the claim and as such, complainant entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. Payment of litigation costs be made by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

                             (Babita)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:30.05.2016. 

GurpreetSharma