Haryana

Ambala

CC/449/2022

JANG BAHADUR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSUARNCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVITA

12 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case No.	:	449 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	02.12.2022
Date of decision	:	12.02.2024

Jang Bahadur Singh S/o Ronak Singh R/o House No.415, Gali No.2, Topkhana Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Branch Office- 2nd Floor, LIC Jeewan Sewa Building, Ambala City

 2nd Address- 106, Railway Station Road, Ambala Cantt.

….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Harshit Kapoor, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP.               

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

a) To pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.26,146/-;

 b) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony     and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

c) To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

                                      OR

Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of car bearing Registration no. HR-01-AG-1359. After purchase of the aforesaid car, the complainant got the same insured with the OP from time to time. On 05.04.2022, the complainant alongwith his son Gurmeet Singh was going towards Manikaran Sahib, Kullu District, (H.P), who was driving the said car, and when it reached near Mandi District, a Big Rock fell from the mountain on its front Bonnet due to which the front portion of the said car got heavily damaged. After the said accident, the complainant's son called on the toll free no. of the OP and informed them about the said accident. After the said accident the complainant and his son were rescued by some passersby who witnessed the accident and helped the complainant to tow the said vehicle to the Garage and thus took them along with them in their vehicle and stayed with them in the HOTEL. As per the instructions of the OP, the said vehicle was towed to the Mechanic for necessary repairs. The Surveyor came on 05-04-2022 and assured the complainant that all of their expenses are covered under the policy and the same shall be paid by the OP. On 13.09.2022 the Garage owner completed the repairs upon the said Vehicle and generated the Bill of Rs.48,946/-. The complainant received an amount of Rs.22,090/- on 20.10.2022 in his account from the OP and was shocked to know that the OP did not pay the remaining amount. Whereas, the complainant had suffered a loss of more than Rs.70,000/- due to the said accident as he had to tow the said car to the Mechanic for Rs.3,000/- plus he had to face many difficulties in waiting for the Surveyor for the next day and to complete the formalities. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable; there is no consumer dispute between the parties; this complaint is a gross abuse of process of law etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant informed to the OP regarding the loss of Vehicle No. HR- 01-AG-1359 which took place on 05.04.2022, whereupon, Surveyor-Er. Vishal Kumar Gautam was appointed to assess the loss. The said surveyor lost no  time  and prepared the report on the basis of physical verification. The surveyor in tune with the instructions inspected the vehicle and verified the genuineness of the parts required to be replaced and repaired. Since after due procedure, when everything was found in order, the required amount of sanction was paid to him as per his satisfaction. The said surveyor prepared the report on the basis of actual and physical verification of the vehicle and accordingly the loss assessed of the vehicle in question came to Rs.22,090/-. It has been noticed during the pre-inspection report that some of the parts were already damaged and were not found damaged in the accident. The OP arrived at the conclusion after scrutiny of surveyor report and examination of the documents. The OP took all possible steps to ensure that the claim be processed in tune with the terms and conditions of the Policy and released the amount of Rs.22,090/- directly in the account of the complainant through NEFT. The complainant is not entitled for balance amount of Rs.26,146/- as compensation, as the OP has already paid the claim within the precincts of terms and conditions of the Policy. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Raman Chhabra, Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 106, Railway Road, 2^nd Floor, Ambala Cantt. and affidavit of Er.Vishal Kumar Gautam, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, C/o Puri Brothers, Samkhetar Bazar, Mandi (HP) as Annexure OP-A and OP-B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not making payment of the entire amount spent by him towards repair of the inured vehicle in question and withholding the amount of Rs.26,146/-  without any justification,  the  OP is deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that since the claim of the complainant was settled strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, and was based on the opinion of the surveyor appointed by it, as such, now the complainant cannot claim anything more, out of the amount settled by the surveyor and already paid to the complainant.   
8.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the  complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.26,146/-, over and above the amount of Rs.22,090/- as assessed by the Surveyor vide his report dated 29.09.2022, Annexure OP-3 or not? It may be stated here that not even a single document has been placed on record by the complainant to rebut the opinion given by the Surveyor in his report dated 29.09.2022,  Annexure OP-3 to the effect that the some damages to the vehicle in question which were got repaired under the current policy and also some parts which were replaced, were already pre-existing. The report, Annexure OP-3 is a detailed report, which has not been challenged by the complainant, by placing on record any evidence, to prove that it is not correct. In fact surveyor's report is the main document on which the insurance claim is settled.  The complainant has not pointed out any discrepancy or lacunae in the report of the surveyor.  Hence without any reasons, the surveyor's report, Annexure OP-3 cannot be disregarded.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited &Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 507, has observed the following:-

"31. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assesses the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured.

 

9.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, he is not entitled to get the amount of Rs.26,146/-. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 12.02.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President