DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 67/2015
Date of Institution : 17.4.2015
Date of Decision : 11.08.2015
Preet Mohinder Singh (Advocate) son of Sh. Paramjit Singh, resident of House No. 392, Ward No. 18, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Opposite Parbhat Cinema, Barnala, District Barnala (Punjab), through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office-1, S.C.O No. 332-334, Sector-34 A, Chandigarh-160022, through its Regional Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Gurpreetpal Singh counsel for the complainant.
Sh. B.B. Menon counsel for the opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Preet Mohinder Singh has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Opposite Parbhat Cinema, Barnala, through its Branch Manager and National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office-1, through its Regional Manager.
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one white coloured Scooter make Honda Activa DLX having Engine No. JF50E71273342, Chassis/Frame No. ME4JF502LE7273307 with registration No. PB-19L-0266 from Global Automobiles, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, on 20.11.2014. The said scooter was insured by opposite party No. 1 for the period from 20.11.2014 to 19.11.2015 under insurance cover note No. 401407828734 for the insured amount of Rs. 48,380/-. It is averred that the registration was applied at DTO Office-cum-Registering Authority (M.V) Barnala and the said registration was done on 24.12.2014.
3. The complainant alleged that on 14.1.2015 he had gone to meet his friend Jagmohan Singh at firm M/s J.S. Dhiman Agricultural Works, Near Pharwahi Octroi Post, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, and parked the said scooter outside the said firm at about 8:30 PM. After some time when he came out he noticed that his scooter has been struck off and badly damaged by any unknown driver of any unidentified vehicle and due to which the Chassis/Frame of the said scooter had been completely damaged. Regarding the said accident DDR No. 4 dated 20.1.2015 PPIA (Police Post Industrial Area) Barnala was registered on the basis of statement suffered by the complainant.
4. It is further pleaded that the complainant got estimate regarding the damage of his scooter from Global Automobiles, Dhanaula Road, Barnala to the tune of Rs. 51,910/- including labour charges vide estimate dated 20.1.2015. The opposite party as well as SHO Police Station City Barnala were also intimated. He further pleaded that the complainant also submitted all the requisite documents to the opposite party No. 1 for getting insurance claim of Rs. 48,380/-. However, the opposite party No. 1 failed to disburse the said claim amount despite many personal visits and repeated requests. Thereafter, the complainant also sent legal notice dated 23.3.2015 vide registered post dated 23.3.2015 to the opposite party No. 1 for releasing the claim amount alongwith interest, but to no effect. Thus, it was alleged that the act/omission of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To disburse the aforementioned insurance claim amount of Rs. 48,380/- alongwith interest.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the ground that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, secondly the complainant has not filed the present complaint with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Forum, thirdly the M/s Global Automobiles, Barnala has prepared wrong figures of cost of parts and excess estimate of loss of Rs. 51,910/-, which is excess, because the actual value of the vehicle is Rs. 48,380/-. On merits, they have admitted the insurance of the said vehicle for an amount of Rs. 48,380/-. However, they have denied the allegations of the complainant regarding the struck of the scooter outside the shop by unknown driver. Moreover the complainant failed to provide relevant documents to the Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Sangrur, for the settlement of loss. They have denied the lodging of DDR No. 4 dated 20.1.2015 at Barnala.
6. It is further averred that the complainant failed to submit all the requisite/relevant documents i.e. third party affidavit (TPA), consent letter, insured declared value (IDV) etc. It is further pleaded that Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Sangrur was deputed for the assessment of loss on 21.1.2015 and the vehicle was inspected by him on 21.1.2015 itself. But the other requisite documents i.e. claim form, police report etc., were handed over by the complainant on different dates to the surveyor. After evaluating the estimate, documents claim was discussed with the complainant and the complainant principally agreed for settlement of loss on net of salvage basis, wherein complainant was told by the surveyor that complainant will get complete insured declared value of vehicle less excess clause and the wreck value of the vehicle. It is further submitted that after getting market value of said damaged vehicle, the claim was discussed and it was informed to the complainant that approximately wreck value of the vehicle is Rs. 18,000/- and the rest of the amount would be given to the complainant by the opposite parties after deducting the compulsory excess as per policy terms. It is further submitted that the complainant agreed for this and as requested by the surveyor also agreed to give him written consent. Finally a meeting was fixed in National Insurance Company Ltd., Barnala Office, with Branch Manager and there also complainant was requested by the Branch Manager to give written consent enabling them to clear claim, but the complainant adamantly refused. They have denied deficiency in service on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of delivery challan Ex.C-2, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.C-3, copy of RC Ex.C-4, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-5, copy of DDR Ex.C-6, copy of letter to opposite party alongwith postal receipt Ex.C-7, copy of letter to SHO City Barnala alongwith postal receipt Ex.C-8, copy of estimate invoice Ex.C-9, copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.
8. In order to rebut the case of complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar Assistant Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Barnala Ex.O.P1, copy of quotation dated 15.4.2015 Ex.O.P2, copy of motor claim form Ex.O.P3 and closed their evidence.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties.
10. In order to prove his case the complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-1 has specifically stated that he is the registered owner of Honda Activa DLX with registration No. PB-19L-0266 purchased from the Global Automobiles, Dhanaula Road, Barnala on 20.11.2014. He further stated that the said scooter was insured with the opposite party No. 1 for the period from 20.11.2014 to 19.11.2015 under the insurance cover note No. 401407828734 for the insured amount of Rs. 48,380/-. He further stated that on 14.1.2015 his scooter was struck off and completely damaged. He further stated in his affidavit that DDR No. 4 dated 20.1.2015 was got registered. To corroborate his version the complainant has also placed on record photocopy of delivery challan of the said scooter Ex.C-2 indicating the scooter purchased from Global Automobiles. Ex.C-3 shows the temporary certificate of registration of the said vehicle dated 20.11.2014 issued by the said Global Automobiles. Ex.C-4 is the photocopy of certificate of registration of this vehicle in favour of the complainant. Ex.C-5 is the photocopy of cover note indicating that the said scooter was insured with opposite parties for the period 20.11.2014 to 19.11.2015. Ex.C-6 is the photocopy of DDR recorded on the statement of the complainant, which shows that the scooter was completely damaged by an unidentified vehicle. Ex.C-7 is the photocopy of letter written by the complainant to the Branch Manager of the opposite parties dated 15.1.2015 indicating the said incident and also requested to send some surveyor for estimate. Ex.C-8 photocopy of letter to SHO dated 15.1.2015 for police action. Ex.C-9 is the photocopy of estimate invoice of Global Automobiles showing the expenditure of Rs. 51,910/-. Ex.C-10 is the photocopy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties for disbursing the claim amount of Rs. 48,380/- alongwith interest.
11. On the other hand the opposite parties have not challenged the ownership of the complainant of the said scooter as well as the insurance of the scooter and the registration of DDR. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle in question as well as insurance and complete damage of the scooter in question.
12. The first contention of the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is that Global Automobiles has prepared excess estimate of loss of Rs. 51,910/-, whereas the actual value of the vehicle is Rs. 48,380/- and therefore the complainant has no right to claim the excess amount than the actual amount. This contention is tenable.
13. It is the case of the opposite parties that Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Sangrur was deputed for the assessment of loss on 21.1.2015 and the vehicle was inspected by him on the same day. The other requisite documents were also received by the surveyor and after evaluating the estimate, documents claim was discussed with the complainant and the complainant agreed for settlement of loss on net of salvage basis, where the surveyor told that the complainant would get complete insured declared value of vehicle less excess clause and the wreck value of the vehicle. It is also the case of the opposite parties that approximately wreck value of the vehicle in as it condition was Rs. 18,000/-. It is also submitted that the complainant agreed for this but the surveyor requested him to give written consent, which the complainant refused to do so.
14. During arguments it is submitted that the insurance company can pay the complete insured declared value of the vehicle less excess clause and the wreck value of the vehicle which is Rs. 18,000/-. As the insured value of the vehicle is Rs. 48,380/- and this is the case of complete damage which is not disputed by the opposite parties, therefore the complainant is entitled to the said amount. Once this Forum comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the complete insured declared value then the wreck of the damaged scooter becomes the property/ownership of the opposite parties.
15. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the opposite parties are entitled to deduction of 5% of the claim amount subject to a minimum of Rs. 250/- and maximum of Rs. 1,000/-. However, there is nothing in the cover note Ex.C-5 placed on record by the complainant and therefore there is no justification to deduct 5% of the claim amount from the declared value of the vehicle.
16. Facing the situation, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that since the entire value of the scooter is payable to the complainant, therefore the complainant is required to execute all the documents related to the transfer of the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite parties. This contention is tenable.
17. In view of the above discussion the present complaint is accepted against the opposite parties. As it is ordered that the complainant is entitled to the complete value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 48,380/- then the wreck/damaged vehicle becomes the property of opposite parties and therefore the complainant is duty bound to transfer the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite parties at the cost of the opposite parties. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost. However, if the amount is not paid within 60 days then the complainant is entitled to interest @ 10% per annum. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
11th Day of August, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
