Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 354
Instituted on : 22.07.2019
Decided on : 01.03.2023.
Raj Kumar age 26 years s/o Sh. Basant Lal, resident of H.No.643, Brijwasi colony, Bhiwani(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Company Limited, #86, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak-124001. Through is Branch Manager.
- National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middledtown Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata-700071.(West Bengal), Through its Manager, Head Office.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Dr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he insured his vehicle Tata Tiago bearing registration No.ḤR16R4592 under cashless scheme, bearing policy no.l55270031196160004354 commenced from 18.04.2019 to 17.04.2020. The alleged vehicle met with an accident on 16.05.2019 at Bhiwani, while trying to escape during overtaking, his car moved on the divider and hit with an electricity pole and complainant’s head got hit to the front windshield/glass. Later on his car was taken over by the officials of Raj motors, Rohtak on complainant’s request. The claim was registered and surveyor was appointed by the insurance company who took photographs alongwith all relevant documents and told Raj Motors to carry on the repair work but he never turned back for final photo. The complainant has marked several emails to the respondents and requested to pay the repair bill and to settle the claim but no satisfactory reply was given by the respondents. Lastly the complainant paid the whole repairing amount from his pocket and took his vehicle after informing the respondents. Respondents sent an email to the complainant that they have paid the claim of Rs.10656/- on 11.07.2019 in full and final settlement of claim. The claim proceeds will be credited to his bank account within 2-3 working days. The estimate of repair was Rs.132077/- whereas the respondent has passed only Rs.10656/- instead of Rs.47392/- which is the actual repair work bill alongwith tyre. Complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the alleged amount but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of alleged amount of Rs.47392/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that after receiving the intimation of loss, the answering respondent took immediate necessary action and appointed surveyor Sh. Rupin Takkar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor who after conducting survey submitted his survey report vide Ref.no.2019/MAY/14 dated 30.05.2019 and assessed the loss for the damages to the insured vehicle. Then after perusal of claim file and verification of documents the claim of the insured/complainant was passed and same was duly paid to the insured/complainant as per the assessment of the surveyor after necessary deductions. The claim of the complainant is already paid by the answering respondent. Therefore due to the above said findings and reasons the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, hence the complainant is not entitled for any claim from the answering respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.10.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.04.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint, the main contention of the complainant is that the insurance company has paid an amount of Rs.10656/- on account of damages suffered in his vehicle. In fact he had spent an amount of Rs.47392/- on the repair of said vehicle. He further submitted that the estimated amount of repair was Rs.132077/-. The insurance company has wrongly assessed the claim of the complainant and he prayed that he is entitled for an amount of Rs.47392/- alongwith other benefits as mentioned in the prayer clause. On the other hand insurance company has stated that as per survey report Rs.10656/- has been assessed by Sh. Rupen Takkar surveyor and he had rightly assessed the claim of the complainant and claim has been assessed as per the terms and conditions of the policy. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the opposite parties. As per Ex.R1, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.8996/- regarding the insurance of the vehicle. The perusal of this document shows that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2478/- on account of add-on- “Nil Deprecation”. Meaning thereby the policy was issued by the insurance company for Nil Depreciation in case of any damages to the vehicle of the complainant. The insurance company placed on record survey report Ex.R2 issued by Sh.Rupin Takkar dated 30.05.2019. As per this report 26 parts were replaced or repaired. Initially the surveyor has estimatedthe damages for the repair of the vehicle as Rs.132077/- whereas the net assessment of the loss as per surveyor comes to Rs.10932/-. The surveyor in his report has made some observations regarding the replacing of the parts under the head of remarks. Different remarks were given regarding the different parts, some parts were found intact, some found fabricated and broken and some were old damages. Out of 26 parts, 23 parts have been denied by the surveyor and surveyor has not allowed these parts for replacement or repair and an amount of Rs.6680/- was passed only for 3 parts i.e. front bumper, front bumper brecket set, RH Head lamp light, alongwith labour charges. In this way as per surveyor, total loss in the vehicle of the complainant comes to Rs.10932/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record repair bills Ex.C4 & Ex.C5. The perusal of these bills shows that vehicle of the complainant was repaired in an authorized service centre i.e.Raj Motors and he charged an amount of Rs.43792/- on account of repair of the vehicle. 13 parts have been changed during the repair of the vehicle. One tyre of the vehicle was also replaced and the bill of the same is placed on record as Ex.C5. The complainant made so many mails Ex.C6 to Ex.C10 for settlement of his claim amounting to Rs.47392/- but opposite parties have only passed the claim of Rs.10932/-. After considering all the facts & documents placed on record we came into the conclusion that if there are some other damages in the vehicle of the complainant or parts are intact at the time of accident and complainant has submitted a wrong estimate before the surveyor or insurance company, in that situation, it is the prime duty of the surveyor that he took the photographs of the vehicle and these photographs should be placed on record by the insurance company in his evidence to prove the fact that there are old damages and some parts were in intact condition. But the insurance company failed to place on record any photograph or other documents to prove that complainant has not suffered the loss of Rs.47392/-. As such complainant is entitled for the claim amount of Rs.47392/- after deducting the amount of Rs.10932/- which has already been paid to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.36460/-(Rupees thirty six thousand four hundred and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.22.07.2019 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as
well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.03.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
