BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.515 of 2015

Date of Instt. 7.12.2015

Date of Decision :22.04.2016

Mustaq Sahota son of Relu Ram R/o H.No.11, Army Enclave Phase-I, Dhina, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, DAB-II, 20, GT Road, Panesar Complex, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Inderjit Singh Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.RS Arora Adv., counsel for the OP.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is owner of the car make Indigo CS bearing registration No.PB-08-BX-9599. The complainant got his said car insured with OP vide insurance policy cover note No.410406734133 on 5.2.2015 valid from 8.2.2015 to 7.2.2016. At the time of purchasing the said policy, the complainant has paid the premium to the tune of Rs.6030/-. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.6.2015. The complainant informed the OP in this regard and accordingly OP appointed its surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report to the OP. The said vehicle was got repaired from the authorized dealer of the car i.e. M/s Kosmo Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., near Delhi Public School, GT Road, Jalandhar and the said company did the necessary repairs and issued retail invoice dated 11.9.2015 for Rs.2,83,283/- and complainant paid Rs.2,69,800/- from his own pocket. Besides this the complainant has also spent a sum of Rs.12870/- on the purchase of tyres and battery of the said car which were damaged totally in the said accident. In this manner the complainant had spent a total amount of Rs.2,86,153/-. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP and requested him to make the said amount to the complainant. Even the complainant has also requested through letter dated 21.10.2015 requesting the OP to make the payment of Rs.2,86,153/- but the OP earlier putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly the OP flatly refused to pay the same. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,86,153. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed written statement pleading that complainant reported about the accident of the car and the company deputed Sh.KK Dhir as surveyor to survey the damage caused to the car in accident who after inspection of the vehicle assessed the loss occurred to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,35,060/- vide his report dated 23.9.2015. It is correct that complainant got his vehicle repaired from M/s Kosmo Vehicles Pvt Ltd Jalandhar and the repairer issued bill of total amount of Rs.2,73,283/- against which the concession was received by the complainant to the tune of Rs.3484/- and he paid Rs.2,69,800/-. There was no refusal as alleged on the part of the OP to pay the claim. The OP was and is prepared to pay the amount assessed. The amount is assessed by the qualified automobile engineer and the license holder from the IRDA with a backing of surveying innumerable such cases. It is alleged that no fault can be found with his survey. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O5 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. From the record, pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his vehicle i.e. Indigo CS Car bearing registration No.PB-08-BX-9599 insured with the OP vide insurance policy cover note No.410406734133 Ex.C1 on 5.2.2015 for the period from 8.2.2015 to 7.2.2016. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.6.2015. The complainant informed the OP. The OP appointed surveyor, who after inspection of the vehicle submitted his report dated 23.9.2015 Ex.O4. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from authorized dealer i.e. M/s Kosmo Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., near Delhi Public School, GT Road, Jalandhar who repaired the vehicle vide invoice dated 11.9.2015 for Rs.2,69,800 and that amount was paid by the complainant from his own pock. Apart from this, the complainant has also spent a sum of Rs.12870/- for purchase of tyres and battery of the said car which was damaged in the aforesaid accident. As such, the complainant submitted that he spent total amount Rs.2,86,153/- for the repair of the vehicle. The claim was lodged with the OP but they did not settle the claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OP is that on receipt of intimation regarding the accident of the vehicle from the complainant, they appointed surveyor/loss assessor Sh.KK Dhir, Automobile Engineer, who after inspection of the vehicle assessed the loss occurred to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,35,060/- vide his report dated 23.9.2015 Ex.O4. On the basis of said surveyor report, the OP decided the claim and conveyed to the complainant but the complainant filed the present complaint. The complainant could not point out any defect in the surveyor report Ex.O4 nor he pointed out in the complaint as to what matter was wrong/left unconsidered by the surveyor in his report Ex.O4. So the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs.1,35,060/- for the repair of the vehicle on the basis of survey report submitted by the surveyor and as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for the OP submitted the cheque of Rs.1,35,060/- dated24.2.2016 but the complainant did not receive that cheque and same was, therefore, submitted in this Forum. Counsel for the complainant received this cheque in the Forum on 18.4.2016. The learned counsel for the OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his vehicle Tata Indigo CS Car bearing registration No.PB-08-BX-9599 insured with the OP vide insurance policy cover note No.410406734133 Ex.C1 for the period from 8.2.2015 to 7.2.2016. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.6.2015. The complainant informed the OP. The OP appointed surveyor Sh.K.K.Dhir, Automobile Engineer, who after inspection of the vehicle assessed loss occurred to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,35,060/- vide his report dated 23.9.2015 Ex.O4. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from authorized dealer i.e. M/s Kosmo Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., GT Road, Jalandhar who repaired the vehicle and raised bill/invoice dated 11.9.2015 Ex.C2 for Rs.2,73,283/- and they gave concession of Rs.3484/- to the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.2,69,800/ to M/s Kosmo Vehicle Pvt Ltd., Jalandhar. The complainant has full knowledge at the time of filing of this complaint that the surveyor had already submitted his report Ex.O4 and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in this complaint vide para No.5 but the complainant in the present complaint has not challenged this report submitted by the surveyor Ex.O4 nor in the complaint he has mentioned anything which has been left unconsidered by the surveyor in his report. The report of the surveyor Ex.O4 is detailed one in which he has considered all the aspects i.e. repair, labour charges and the parts replaced/repaired. The report of the surveyor is best piece of evidence to settle the claim of the insured, unless the same is proved to be not genuine and the complainant was duty bound to point out the defects in the surveyor report i.e. in the form as to what has been left unconsidered in the report or what was not genuinely considered by the surveyor. Moreover, the complainant has not examined any person from M/s Kosmo Vehicle Pvt Ltd., to prove the details of invoice Ex.C2 and to prove that the repair done/parts replaced/labour charges claimed in this bill are genuine and were necessary for making the insured vehicle roadworthy because some parts are being replaced by the repairer only just to make the vehicle looking good and some parts could be repaired but they are not repaired but replaced only on the asking of the owner of the vehicle. So, the report of the surveyor Ex.O4 is a valid and genuine document on the basis of which the OP has decided the claim case of the complainant and the counsel for the complainant received the cheque of Rs.1,35,060/- dated 24.2.2016 from the OP in the Forum on 18.4.2016 though under protest.

9. The complainant has further submitted that he has also spent a sum of Rs.12870/- for the purchase of tyres and battery of the said car but complainant could not produce any evidence in the form of mechanic or automobile engineer to prove that these tyres and battery were damaged as a result of accident or whether the same were worn out with the passage of time. As such, the same are not covered under the policy.

10. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the OP was justified in settling the claim of the complainant on the basis of the report of the surveyor Ex.O4 for Rs.1,35,060/- and this amount has been paid by the OP to the complainant through cheque dated 24.2.2016 which was received by counsel for the complainant on 18.4.2016. As such, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP while settling the claim of the complainant.

11. Consequently, we hold that the present complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

22.04.2016 Member Member President