STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 353 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 26.10.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 14.01.2013 |
M/s Matrix Engineering, Plot No. 435, Phase-IX, Mohali, through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
……Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 332-333-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager.
....Respondent/Opposite party..
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.09.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint of the complainant and directed the Opposite Party, as under: -
“10. The complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.11,900/- to the Complainant as assessed by the Surveyor. In addition, the Opposite Party will pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for delaying the claim unnecessarily for almost three years. The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of litigation.
11. This amount be paid by the Opposite Party within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which Opposite Party shall also be additionally liable for an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of this order, till the date of payment, besides the cost of litigation.”
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of Maruti Zen car No. CH01W-7991, Model 1998, got it insured for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.70,000/-, for the period from 24.04.2009 to 23.10.2010. It was stated that on 30.04.2010, the vehicle met with an accident. It was further stated that the claim was lodged. A surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, who made an assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.49,641.50 against an estimated loss of Rs.75,138.75. The vehicle was got repaired from M/s Lall Autos, 399, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula. The spare parts for replacement were purchased from M/s Standard Motors, authorized retail counters of TATA Motors and stockists of Maruti genuine parts. It was further stated that the complainant made a number of requests, to the Opposite Party, to settle its claim, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.75,138.75 being the amount spent, on the repair of the vehicle alongwith interest @12% per annum; Rs.50,000/- as compensation; and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, was filed.
3. The Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that the complainant had no locus-standi to file the complaint. It was further stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as per the Act. It was further stated that the complainant got the car, in question, insured with the Opposite Party. It was further stated that on receipt of intimation, with regard to the accident of the vehicle, in question, M/s. Gopal Krishan and Associates were appointed as surveyors to assess the loss, suffered by the vehicle. The said surveyors, after detailed survey, submitted report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.30,301.69 before the deduction of salvage of Rs.1,500/-. It was further stated that the surveyors, in their report, apprised the complainant that the replacement shall be allowed, keeping in view the extent of damage, relating to the cause and nature of accident, and the amount of parts found not replaced, during re-inspection, will be deducted from assessment. It was further stated that after the vehicle was repaired, to check whether the damaged parts had been replaced, with new parts, as recommended by the surveyor, the re-inspection of the vehicle was to be carried out, for which surveyor M/s Pee Kay & Co. were appointed. It was further stated that the complainant was informed to bring the vehicle for re-inspection. It was further stated that since the complainant did not bring the vehicle for re-inspection, letter dated 17.09.2009 was written to him. It was further stated that M/s Pee Kay and Co. also wrote letter dated 30.09.2009, to the complainant, for producing the vehicle for re-inspection. It was further stated that since the complainant failed to produce the vehicle for re-inspection, after repairs/ replacement of its parts, despite many reminders given to it, its claim was closed as ‘No Claim’. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party or they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, against inadequate amount of loss, awarded by the District Forum, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. Undisputedly, the vehicle, in question, was got insured by the complainant, with the Opposite Party, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.70,000/-. There is also, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the said vehicle met with an accident, during the currency of Insurance Policy. A surveyor was also appointed by the Opposite Party, to assess the loss, caused to the vehicle, in the accident. It is evident from Annexure R-1 i.e. Final Motor Survey Report, that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.30,301.69 [Rs.11,900/- on account of labour charges + Rs.37,741.50 relating to the cost of parts (-) minus Rs.500/- on account of less excess clause (-) minus Rs.18,839.81 on account of depreciation). The expected salvage value, according to the surveyor, was to the tune of Rs.1,500/-. Though the surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.30,301.69, yet the District Forum, it appears, did not go through the report of the surveyor (Annexure R-1A) properly, and, only awarded a sum of Rs.11,900/- by picking up the figure, from the last page of the same (report of the surveyor), which only related to the labour charges. The report of the surveyor is an important document and cannot be discarded without any valid reason. No cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the complainnt to prove that the report of the surveyor was, in any way, incorrect. It is, therefore, held that even as per the summary of assessment of loss, depicted by the Surveyor at Page 159 of District Forum file, the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.30,301.69. The complainant is, thus, entitled to Rs.30,301.69, instead of Rs.11,900/-, awarded by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum deserves modification to this extent.
9. An objection was taken by the Opposite Party, in the written reply, that the vehicle for re-inspection by the surveyor, was not produced, by the complainant, despite giving I,t a number of opportunities by writing letters. It may be stated here that the factum was not denied by the Opposite Party, that Wg. Cdr. R. L. Sharma, re-inspected the vehicle as per the instructions of the Opposite Party and submitted his report. Once Wg. Cdr. R. L. Sharma (Retd.) had re-inspected the vehicle and submitted his report Annexure C-6), there was no occasion, on the part of the Opposite Party, to ask for re-inspection of the same. It appears that the Opposite Party, just with a view to linger on the matter or to deny the just claim of the complainant, asked it again and again for production of the vehicle for re-inspection. Though both the parties admitted that the vehicle was got insured, yet the detailed terms and conditions thereof, were not produced by them. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the terms and conditions of the policy, required production of the vehicle for re-inspection after repairs. Such an attitude was adopted by the Opposite Party, without any justifiable cause. On account of this reason, justified claim of the complainant was delayed. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-, for delaying the payment of the claim by the Opposite Party, unnecessarily for almost three years.
10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant, is partly accepted, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, rendered by the District Forum, is modified in the following manner: -
“(i) The Respondent/Opposite Party shall pay a sum of Rs.30,301.69/-, to the Appellant/ Complainant, on account of assessment of loss caused to the vehicle, by the surveyor, instead of Rs.11,900/-, awarded by the District Forum.
(ii) The other reliefs granted, and directions given, by the District Forum shall remain intact.”
12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
14th January, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.353 of 2012)
Argued by: Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated the 14th day of January 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant, has been partly accepted with no orders as to costs, and the order of the District Forum is modified.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
