Haryana

StateCommission

A/61/2016

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        61 of 2016

Date of Institution:      20.01.2016

Date of Decision :       29.04.2016

 

Atul Kumar Gupta s/o Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta, Resident of Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      National Insurance Company, Gohana Branch District Sonipat through its Branch Manager.

2.      Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Outer Killa Road, Rohtak.

3.      Vipin Auto Mobiles, Opposite Police Lines, Barwala Chowk, Hisar, District Hisar, through its Proprietor.

4.      National Insurance Company, Branch Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Appellant in person.

                             Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Truck bearing registration No.HR-61/4853, owned by Atul Kumar Gupta-complainant/appellant, was insured with National Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties vide Insurance Policy Annexure R-1, for the period June 30^th, 2006 to June 29^th, 2007. The Insured Declared Value (‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.6,75,450/-. On December 22^nd, 2006, the truck was damaged in an accident. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.1,48,835/- vide report Annexure R-3. The salvage value was assessed at Rs.8835/-. Thus, the net loss was worked out to Rs.1,40,000/-. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company paid Rs.34,950/-. It was stated by the appellant/complainant that he spent Rs.2,34,200/- on the repair of his truck. The remaining amount not being paid, the appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the amount of Rs.34,950/- was paid in full and final settlement of the claim and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated December 29^th, 2015 accepted complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“11.   As per OP No.1, the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.1,48,835/- less salvage value of Rs.8,835/-, out of which 104600/- has been assessed loss for the cabin and the bill of the cabin produced by the complainant is not proper, hence after deducting Rs.104600/- a sum of Rs.34,950/- has been paid to the complainant. It is admitted that the Surveyor has assessed the loss of cabin at Rs.104600/- but the said amount has not been paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant on the ground that is so-called bill of the cabin, Annexure R-9 is not genuine and proper. Taking into account the facts of the case, we deem that the OP can settle the 75% of the assessed loss of Rs.1,04,600/- on non-standard basis. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops No.1, 2 & 4 to pay Rs.78,400/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest @ 6% per cent per annum from the Ops till the date of payment of the amount to the complainant.”

4.      Though the appellant/complainant states that he has spent Rs.2,34,200/- on the repair of his truck, but there is no cogent evidence in this regard. The amount claimed on account of the estimate by a mechanic cannot be taken as gospel truth. The estimate has no value unless and until any cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of bill is produced.

5.      At the same time, though the Insurance Company states that the amount of Rs.34,950/- was paid in full and final settlement of appellant’s claim, however, there is no document in support of its contention to this regard.  Awarding 75% of the assessed amount without any justifiable ground is not justified.

6.      Indisputably, the surveyor after deducting the salvage value of Rs.8835/-, assessed the loss at Rs.1,40,000/-. The Insurance Company already paid Rs.34,950/- to the appellant. So, the balance payable amount comes to Rs.1,05,050/-. 

7.      Since the appellant has faced the litigation for a long period, awarding of compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be justifiable.

8.      In view of the above, the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,05,050/- to the appellant alongwith interest as ordered by the District Forum. The Insurance Company shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.

9.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

 

Announced 29.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL