Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/172

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

17 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                 172 of 2019

Date of Institution:        12.07.2019

Date of Decision :        17.03.2020

 

Narinder Singh aged about 50 years, s/o Avtar Singh r/o 31 D Akash Avenue, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar.

                                                                  ........Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Company through its Branch Manager, Branch Office on Tota Bargari Plaza, 2^nd Floor, Near Fly Over Muktsar Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

........OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

cc no.-172 of 2019

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.2,59,105/-as remaining insurance claim and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

 2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant owns a truck bearing RC No.PB05-AB-8433 which was insured with OPs vide policy no. 01702/ 31 /16/ 6300000681 for the period from 28.09.2016 to 27.09.2017. It is submitted that during the subsistence of policy in question, on 23.05.2017 at about 5.00 am, truck of complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant immediately informed OPs. On intimation by complainant, OPs appointed a Surveyor, Mr. Rishi Bhasin who had some grudge with complainant and on request of complainant, Ops appointed Mr Kailash Chander as Surveyor, but that surveyor deputed by Ops was also hand in glove with Mr. Rishi Bhasin and he gave incomplete report after 14 months of accident without considering the bills submitted by complainant to them. As

cc no.-172 of 2019

per report dt 22.08.2018, he assessed the loss only for Rs.1,35,000/-though at the instance of Ops, complainant paid Rs.3,94,400/-to Kala Body Maker, Moga for repair purpose. Virtual repairs cost Rs.3,55,000/-while remaining amount was spent for making the vehicle worthy to run on road. It is submitted that complainant furnished all docuemnts as required by Ops for processing the claim, but Ops made only partial payment of Rs.1,35,000/-which was received by complainant under protest. Complainant made several requests to Ops and also several mails, but despite repeated requests, Ops did not pay any heed on his genuine requests and did not do anything needful to make payment of remaining amount spent by him on repair of vehicle and this action of OPs in passing only partial claim and for not making payment of remaining claim amount amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for directions to Ops to make payment of Rs.2,59,150/- as remaining insurance claim and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

 

cc no.-172 of 2019

3                                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.07.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant is not the consumer of answering OPs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint as complainant has already received the insurance claim of Rs.1,39,125/- for accident of his truck. As per Surveyor Report, claim has been paid to complainant and claim of complainant has been satisfied and nothing is due towards OPs. Complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. Complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring detailed evidence, which is not permissible in the Consumer Protection Act. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant but admitted before the Forum that truck in question was insured with

cc no.-172 of 2019

OPs for the period from 28.09.2016 to 27.09.2017 and said truck met with an accident. it is asserted that on intimation by complainant, answering OPs appointed Mr. Bhasin as Surveyor to assess the loss, but as per instructions of complainant, Mr. Bhasin wa replaced with Mr. Kailash Chander as Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss caused to damaged vehicle. Said Surveyor Mr. Kailash Chander had no grudge with complainant and he was not influenced by Mr Bhasin. He gave his independent report on 22.08.2018, but complainant never cooperated with answering OP and even OP had to write several letters dated 29.11.2018, 17.12.2018, 31.12.2018 and 17.01.2019 to complaiannt requiring him to furnish requisite documents. Reply to all letters was given and information sought by complainant under Right to Information Act was also supplied to him.  As per terms and conditions of Policy and after thorough application of mind and in consultation with complainant, said Surveyor gave his report and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,39,125/-and amount of Rs.1,39,125/-has already been paid to complainant and now nothing is due towards them as insurance claim. There is no malafide intention or exploitation by OPs as claim of complainant has been fully satisfied.

cc no.-172 of 2019

All the other allegations have been denied being wrong, incorrect and false and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-36 and then, despite availing sufficient oppertunities, when complainant did not conclude his evidence then, evidence of complainant was closed by order of this Forum dated 08.01.2020.

6                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Manjit Singh, Sr. Branch Manager as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-10 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7                           We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as OP and have also thorughly gone

 

cc no.-172 of 2019

through the documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties.             

8                                    From the careful perusal of the record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that his vehicle was insured with OP, which met with an accident on 23.05.2017 during subsistence of insurance period and got damaged. He gave due information regarding it to OP, who appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss. Complainant submitted all the requisite documents as demanded by Surveyor and also completed all the other formalities for processing the insurance claim, but OP cleared the claim only for Rs.1,35,000/- and did not give the remaining insurance claim amount and also gave no reason for not paying the remaining amount. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests by complainant, OP has not made payment of remaining insurance claim, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. On the other hand, OPs stressed mainly on the point that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy and Survey Report given by Surveyor Kailash Chander, claim of complainant has been successfully passed and settled and amount of Rs. 1,39,125/-has

cc no.-172 of 2019

already been duly paid to him and now, nothing is due towards OP pertaining to insurance claim of his vehicle. Ld Counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP, rather complainant himself did not cooperate with their Surveyor and bills submitted by him appeared to be procured ones.The Surveyor had also gone through the estimate bill minutely and after considering all the aspects after deducting the salvage and depreciation value of the damaged parts, assessed the loss to the vehicle which has already been paid to the complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

9                                       It is admitted case, that truck of complainant was insured with OP and there is also no denial to the fact that accident of insured truck occurred on 23.05.2017. the only dispute between the parties is that complainant spent Rs.3,94,400/-for repair of the vehicle at the instance of OP, but OP cleared the claim only for Rs.1,35,000/-only and without any plausible reason withheld the remaining insurance claim amount in respect of vehicle of the complainant though vehicle in question was fully insuredl with OP and accident occurred during the subsistence of policy in question. Ld

cc no.-172 of 2019

counsel for complainant brought before the  Forum, documents Ex C-13 to Ex C-20 which are copies of bills that clearly prove the pleadings of complainant that he paid Rs.3,94,400/-to Ops for repairing his vehicle and for making the same worthy to run on road. Ex C-11 is report of Jasjeet Singh Purba Surveyor appointed by OP to verify the repair bills submitted by the complainant, who verified the bills of repair, visited the workshop and spare parts store, from where complainant got repaired his vehicle and found that bills submitted by the complainant as genuine. Plea of OP for making less payment is that they settled the claim of the complainant on the basis of report of Surveyor. Copy of the same is Ex OP-10.

10                                       We have gone through this Survey Report where against the estimate of Rs.4,62,200/-, the Surveyor assessed the loss only for Rs.1,36,750/- which is very less. At serial no.1, estimate of Matharu Show Repairs Works, Moga for repair of both sides of roof, box alignment, H repairing, Bumper repairing, body repairing and rear mudguard fitting, against the estimate of Rs.23,000/-, he assessed the loss only to the tune of Rs.3000/-. At serial no. 2 against the estimate of Jandu Motor Repairing Works, Moga for Rs.25,000/-

cc no.-172 of 2019

for repair of Chasis frame alignment, Front Axle opening and fitting, leaf spring opening and fitting, surveyor assessed loss only for Rs.12,000/-. Further, at serial no.4, estimate given for cost of trailer box by Kala Body Maker, Moga for Rs.4 lacs, the Surveyor assessed the loss only for Rs.1,18,000/-which is very less. Admittedly, the Surveyor Report is major part of evidence which cannot be brushed aside out rightly but the Surveyor Report is not the conclusive evidence which cannot be rebutted. Surveyor Report should be based on cogent grounds on the basis of actual loss. Admittedly, the Ops firstly appointed Mr R. Bhasin who had some grudge with complainant and on request of complainant OP again appointed Mr Kailash Chander as Surveyor in place of Mr R Bhasin. It can not be ruled out that Surveyor Kailash Chander is approached by Mr. R Bhasin and influenced by him to give report regarding lesser loss due to his grudges with complainant. Mr Kailash Chander might have obliged Mr R Bhasin being in same profession. We are of considered opinion that Surveyor assessed loss on very lesser side. Bills produced by complainant are fully authentic and cogent and plea taken by OP that these bills seem to be procured ones, is not

cc no.-172 of 2019

appropriate without assigning any reason for not accepting the same. Moreover, OP has not shown that how and on what basis, they calculated Rs.1,35,000/-and for what reason they did not pass the remaining insurance claim amount of complainant.

11                                      From the above discussion and evidence and documents produced by complainant, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in passing the partial claim on account of damage caused to his insured vehicle. No plausible reason is put forward by OP to clear the point that why they assessed less loss to the vehicle. From the bills placed on record by complainant, it is clear that he has paid Rs.3,94,400/- for repair purpose to Kala Body Maker, Moga. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed and Ops are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- more as insurance claim to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per anum from the date of institution of complaint till final realization. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well for as for litigation expenses incurred by him on present complaint. Compliance

cc no.-172 of 2019

of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 17.03.2020       

 (Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

             Member                           President