Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 186.
Instituted on : 21.04.2015.
Decided on : 05.04.2016.
Dinesh Kumar s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of Panna.-Sonth, Near Post Office, Village-Kheri sadh, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Narain Complex, 2nd Floor, Delhi Raod, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Manager, Head Office, National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middletown Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata-700071(West Bengal).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rinku Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.O.P.Punia, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he took an insurance policy under cashless scheme of opposite party for his Tata Indigo-ECS-LX Car, registration no.HR 12T 9266 bearing policy No.25331031130150042873 for the period from 23.08.2013 to 22.08.2014 for IDV Rs.440000/-. It is averred that on 29.04.2014 the alleged vehicle met with an accident and the complainant also got some injuries and took his car by crane to Raj Motors, Rohtak(authorized Tata Showroom) and intimation was also given to the opposite parties about the said accident on 01.05.2014. It is averred that Sh. Ashok Kumar Surveyor was appointed by the company who declared it as total loss and spot survey was conducted by Major Mehar Singh. It is averred that as per Raj Motors, Rohtak the estimate for the said repair work was more than the IDV i.e. Rs.440000/-. The complainant deposited all the required documents as prescribed by the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party and the surveyor did not cooperate with the complainant. It is averred that complainant has paid Rs.20000/- in advance to Raj Morots for the said car whereas the complainant has a cashless policy. It is averred that complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to settle the claim but the opposite parties delayed it. A legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties on 01.04.2015 but the opposite parties delayed to solve the matter or refund the claim amount. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.440000/- on account of IDV and Rs.3500/- as crane toeing charges alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that Ashok Kumar was never appointed as Surveyor. In this case M/s Harshit Associates Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors has been appointed. The payment of Rs.20000/- to Raj Motors is between complainant and Raj Motors and company has nothing to do with this advance payment. It is averred that at the request of complainant the vehicle has been re-surveyed by Sh. Daya Ram Gupta, Surveyor who has given his technical advise/wreck valuation report. It is averred that the matter was discussed between the claimant and the surveyor. Hence the claim of body shell and engine have been given up by the complainant. It is averred that complainant gave consent letter that claim be settled for Rs.350000/- and complainant agreed to fully satisfy with the amount and company is also ready to pay Rs.349000/- The receipt was also signed by the complainant and he is not entitled as IDV of Rs.440000/- and crane toeing charges etc. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.R1, Ex.R2 & documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R7 and the evidence of the opposite parties was closed by the order dated 06.01.2016 of this Forum.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. It is also not disputed that as per policy Ex.C1 the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.440000/-. After the accident, opposite parties appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R3 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.349000/- on total loss basis. But the complainant has not accepted the same on the ground that the case of complainant is of total loss and as per IDV of the vehicle he is entitled for the amount of Rs.440000/- alongwith interest paid on loan amount due to delay on the part of opposite parties in settlement of claim as well as extra parking charges paid by him. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is that the surveyor as per his report Ex.R3 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.349000/- and that complainant gave consent letter that claim be settled for Rs.350000/- and complainant agreed to fully satisfy with the amount and company is also ready to pay Rs.349000/-. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the surveyor as per his final survey report Ex.R3 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.349000/- and the opposite parties were ready to pay the same. In this regard reliance has been placed upon law laid-down in 2013(3)CLT 126 titled as Kaur Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside,” and Hon’ble National Commission in 1(2010)CPJ 272 (NC) titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subash Kumar, has held that: “Surveyor’s report has considerable evidential value, cannot be ignored, unless discredited by producing contrary evidence- Settlement of claim on repair basis directed as per surveyor’s report”. Regarding the quantum of loss, Hon’ble National Commission in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that: “Insurance-Quantum dispute-Loss assessed by Surveyor awarded by State Commission-Amount spent on repairs claimed by complainant-Surveyor’s report to be given due weightage-Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute-Complainant free to approach Civil Court/IRDA/Arbitration-Time spent before Consumer Fora to be set off”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled to the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the opposite parties shall pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.349000/-(Rupees three lac forty nine thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.21.04.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
