Complainant Rohit Mahajan, through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.2,56,500/- as insured vehicle alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- as damages because of illegal tension and harassment and any other relief as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of the Tata Indigo CS bearing No.PB-02-BD-8888, Model 2010, Chassis No.10616, Engine No.18376, Colour Mint White. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company vide policy No.406002311510000142 which was effective from 24.4.2015 to 23.04.2016 vide customer ID No.9505381910 in his name after paying Rs.5739/- as premium. The vehicle met with an accident while coming back from Vaishno Devi Katra on 16.4.2016 and fell into a Ditch and the vehicle was fully damaged and the vehicle was driven by his brother Vaneet Mahajan, who was having a valid driving license at that time. After the aforesaid accident he approached the Local Office of opposite party and narrated the whole story with regard to the accident through the telephonic call, but no positive response was given by the opposite party and at this his brother Vaneet Mahajan and Rohit Mahajan themself approached to one Gurjeet Singh Surveyor, Udhampur (J & K), who visited the spot on 17.04.2016 for the purpose of advising and for inspecting the vehicle and to know whether the vehicle in question is in the position to be brought back, after charging the amount of Rs.1600/- on the spot. The vehicle was brought to Batala city with the help of recovery Van by paying more than Rs.10,000/- as service charges of recovery Van to its owner and since then same is lying parked in the premises of private workshop and one Saranpal Singh an employee/surveyor of opposite party no.2 visited there and he also made his report with the opposite party. The IDV value of the insured vehicle at the time of insurance was Rs.2,56,800/-. He has further pleaded that he has approached the opposite party no.2 to get the vehicle repaired or to pay the claim of insurance as per its IDV value but the opposite party no.2 keeping him at an arm’s length and on the other hand he is feeling deprived of his own vehicle. As the opposite party no.2 is not ready to get the vehicle in question repaired from its own pocket but the opposite party no.2 is saying to him to get it repaired. He visited the office of opposite party no.2 for many times but the employees of the opposite party no.2 used to insult and degrade him and lingering the matter on one pretext or to the other. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable because of the acts and conduct of the complainant. Immediately after the loss was reported to branch office of opposite parties at Udhampur, a surveyor, Er.Gurjeet Singh was detailed to carry out the spot survey. The complainant shifted his vehicle to Batala his home town. The complainant had shifted his damaged car to an unauthorized workshop on his own. Thereafter another surveyor Saranpal Singh was detailed who surveyed the vehicle and assessed the loss. The surveyor advised the complainant to get his vehicle repaired and put up the bills. The complainant was given reminders dated 21.6.2016 and 26.7.2016 for getting his vehicle repaired, but the complainant instead of getting the vehicle repaired preferred to file the present complaint. Thus the complainant is guilty of not getting his vehicle repaired as advised by the surveyor and putting the blame on the opposite parties. On merits also the same contentions have been repeated/ pleaded and complaint is prayed to be dismissed against the opposite parties.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not covered under the definition of “consumer” under the act ‘ibid’ qua opposite party no.3; the complaint is not maintainable under the law; the present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Forum; there is no evidence worth its name to show that there is any negligence or deficiency or delaying in conducting survey of the vehicle in question and have also taken certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the complaint with regard to the vehicle surveyed by opposite party no.3 at a private garage/repairer and preparing interim report dated 20.06.2016. The repairer who gave estimate for repairs is not an authorized workshop of manufacturer. Thus there is no question for the repairs to be done cashless from the insurance company. It was further submitted that opposite party no.3 met purported complainant and his representative as well as number of times and further wrote letters dated 21.06.2016 as well as 26.7.2016 to purported complainant by registered post to get repairs of the vehicle started so that after completion of the repairs, the claim can be settled but the purported complainant did not get the repairs of vehicle started for the reasons best known to him. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Sh.Vaneet Mahajan Ex.C12 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.
6. Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sunil Tuli Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.P-1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/5 and closed the evidence.
7. Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Saranpal Singh Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP-3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/13 and closed the evidence.
8. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the complainant’s accident claim having been assessed loss on loss basis for an amount of Rs.1,66,653/- (Ex.OP1,2/2) by the OP insurer’s Surveyor (OP3, here) whereas the complainant has been asking for the full IDV of Rs.2,56,500/- However, the OP1,2 insurers and the OP3 Surveyor have duly pleaded by filing written statements as also deposed through affidavits Ex.OP1,2/1 and Ex.OP3/1 that the claim in question was assessed and passed loss on repair basis for the ‘accident’ damages only as per the entitlement of the insured vehicle whereas the complainant wanted to get the full IDV.
9. We find that the complainant has not been getting the accidented vehicle repaired in spite of the many reminders from the OP1,2 insurers and the OP3 surveyor for no good and acceptable logic and thus we are inclined to direct the complainant to get the accidented car repaired as per the policy claim settlement acceptable norms.
10. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP insurers to settle the impugned insurance claim in terms of the here-exhibited Surveyor’s Final Report within 07 working days of the receipt of the Repair Bills etc from the complainant who will submit it to them along with other requisite papers (if any) within 30 days of the receipt of these orders. The parties shall however bear their own costs, here.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
January 25, 2017 Member.
*MK*
