| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 129 of 24-5-2019 Decided on : 03 -07-2023 Pawan Kumar S/o Preji Lal aged about 54 years, R/o H.No.13343, Suraj Basti, Namdev Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus National Insurance Company Limited, O/o 2033, The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Varun Gupta, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh. Sushil Bansal, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Pawan Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( Now C.P. Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this forum (Now Commission) against National Insurance Company Limited (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he got insured his Toyota Innova Vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13-T-0004 from the opposite party vide bumper to bumper and dep cap policy which is valid from 11-03-2018 to 10-03-2019. It is alleged that during the tenure of the policy, the said vehicle was damaged due to accident and as per directions of the opposite party, the complainant approached Pioneer Motors, Dabwali Road, Bathinda for repair of the vehicle and after repairing the vehicle, they raised bill but the opposite party did not pay for some parts and under compelled circumstances, complainant paid Rs.22,000/- from his pocket. It is further alleged that after receiving the vehicle, the complainant approached the opposite party and inquired about non payment of full amount as per policy, but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant alleged that the opposite party withheld the amount of the claim under the policy without any cause and never explained the reason for deduction. The act and conduct of the opposite party is against the insurance law and the same tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to release the withheld amount alongwith interest @12% p.a. and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental, financial and physical harassment in addition to Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The complaint has been filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of the opposite party. The complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act' and has violated terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has not come with clean hands rather has concealed the true and material facts. It has been pleaded that the true facts are that on receiving the intimation from complainant regarding accident on 30.07.2018 of vehicle No. PB-13T/0004, opposite party immediately deputed an independent licensed Surveyor/Loss Assessor Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal for spot Survey. Thereafter final Survey for Assessment of Loss was conducted by Sh.V.K Gupta, deputed by company on 08.08.2018. Subsequently during repair of vehicle at EM Pee Motors Ltd, Bathinda, each and every loss was discussed in detail with repairer as well the Insured and after the assessment of loss vehicle in question was got repaired by the insured to his best aatisfaction and he also signed voucher and Consent Letter and accepted full & final settlement of claim amount of Rs.1,84,000/-. Accordingly, on receiving the report from Surveyor/Loss assessor Sh. V.K Gupta, payment of Rs.1,84,000/- was directly transferred by opposite party into the account of Insured. Thereafter, no complaint was received from insured regarding withholding of Rs.22,000/- out of claim amount as alleged in complaint. The opposite party has pleaded that opposite party has proceeded the claim case as per terms and conditions of policy and after following rules and regulations of company and made the full payment to Insured as finally assessed by independent Surveyor/Loss. Assessor, licensed by IRDA after acceptance by the insured and no depreciation has been deducted by opposite party or Surveyor on any part allowed in final assessment. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim of Insured. Opposite party has not withheld any amount of claim and has not made any unlawful deduction from the claim amount of Insured. Further legal objections are that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious having been filled mischievously to compel the opposite party to succumb to illegal and unlawful demands and claims of the complainant. That this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint at Bathinda and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved in present complaint. On merits, the opposite party has pleaded that complainant as per policy is owner of Toyota Innova Vehicle bearing registration No. PB-136-T-0004 and is insured with the opposite party which is valid from 11.03.2018 to 10.03.2019 with nil depreciation cover. The complainant was provided policy along with full terms & conditions of Policy and opposite party has made full and final payment without any deduction as per report of independent Surveyor/ Loss assessor licensed by IRDA to the satisfaction of Insured/Complainant. All the parts damaged in accident are allowed by the surveyor. The parts which are not allowed by the surveyor/loss assessor were not damaged due to accident. The opposite party has pleaded that opposite party has made full and final payment to the satisfaction of insured/complainant as per terms & conditions of policy and no unlawful deduction has been made by opposite party from the claim of claimant. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 24.5.2019 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of N.K Sachdeva dated 10.7.2019 (Ex.OP-1/9) and documents (Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/8). The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle of the complainant which was insured with the opposite party met with an accident and on intimation, surveyor was deputed to assess the loss. However, the opposite party illegally and unlawfully deducted approximately Rs. 22,000/- from the total payable amount to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has argued that on receiving intimation from the complainant on 30-7-2018, Mr Vinod Kumar Goyal was deputed as spot surveyor and thereafter Mr V K Gupta was deputed and final surveyor to assess the loss and independent final surveyors have assessed the loss caused to the vehicle and after detailed discussion with repairer as well as the complainant. The complainant has signed satisfaction voucher and consent letter Ex. OP-1/6 & Ex. OP-1/7 without any kind of coercion and pressure on him with his free will and accepted the full and final settlement of claim assessed amount of Rs. 1,84,000/- and the said amount was directly transferred in the account of the complainant. The amount has been deducted by the opposite party as per report of surveyor. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that vehicle Toyota Innova bearing registration No. PB-13T/0004 was insured with the opposite party and said vehicle met with an accident and on receiving intimation Mr Vinod Kumar Goyal, was appointed as spot surveyor and thereafter Mr. V K Gupta, as final surveyor was deputed to assess the loss. It is further admitted fact that amount of Rs. 22,000/- has been deducted by the opposite party on the basis of report of surveyor. Now the question before this Commission is whether the deduction of Rs. 22,000/- by the opposite party was justified or not. A perusal of report of surveyor Ex. OP-1/4 and assessment sheet Ex. OP-1/5 shows that payment regarding some of the items mentioned at Sr. No. 2, 9, 22, 35, 36, 47 & 48 was not allowed by the surveyor. This Commission is of the view that although report of the surveyor is to be scrutinized in every manner but in the present case, the complainant has issued satisfaction voucher Ex. OP-1/6 and consent letter Ex. OP-1/7 by having agreed with the report of surveyor and after admitting the assessment of surveyor as correct. Moreover, a perusal of entire complaint shows that complainant has not in any manner disclosed as to in what circumstances, the complainant signed satisfaction voucher and consent letter. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that complainant has concealed material facts of having signed satisfaction voucher and consent letter from this Commission. Thus, this Commission is of the considered opinion that complainant has not been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 03-07-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
