New Complaint No.239 of 2023.                                                           

                                                               Date of Institution:27.10.2023.

                                                              Old Complaint No:312 of 2018.

                                                                Date of Institution: 19.07.2018.

                                                                        Date of order:23.01.2024.                                                                        

1.       M/s. Romesh Engineering Works, 4-A, Industrial Estate, Batala, through its proprietor.

2.       Rajinder Bansal, Proprietor of M/s. Romesh Engineering Works, 4-A, Industrial Estate, Batala.

                                                                                                                           ….....Complainants.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       VERSUS

1.       National Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office: 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pin Code – 700071, through its Managing Director or any other authorized person or through its Branch Manager, Jalandhar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2.       National Insurance Company Ltd., Motor OD Claim Hub, Grand Walk Mall, 4th Floor, Ferozpur road, Ludhiana, through its Regional Head or any other authorized person.

3.       National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, SCO No. 31-32, Leela Bhawan Market Complex, Patiala.

4.       National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Jalandhar Road, Batala, through its Branch Manager.                                                                      

                                                                                                                             ….Opposite parties.

                                             Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainants: Sh.Rishi Dutta, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Rajinder Bansal, Complainant (Proprietor of M/s. Romesh Engineering Works) (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against National Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant got his car "Verna Make" bearing registration No. PB-06-R-5257 insured from the opposite parties vide policy/cover note bearing No. GG31/401607147139 for the period from 13.04.2017 upto 12.04.2018 and paid the requisite premium for the same to the opposite parties. It is pleaded that that prior to this policy, the complainant had also taken a motor insurance for the same vehicle for the period from 13.04.2016 upto 12.04.2017 vide Policy No. GY 31/401507993150. It is further pleaded that relationship of the consumer and supplier as such exists between the parties as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party No. 1 is an insurance company having its head office at Kolkata. The opposite party No. 2 is regional office of the opposite party No. 1 and is having its office at Ludhiana. The opposite party No. 3 is the branch office of the opposite party No. 1 at Batala. It is further pleaded that on 15.06.2017 while coming from Jalandhar to Batala the above said insured car of the complainant met with an accident at about 8 P.M. at Jalandhar road between Village Butter and Mehta Chowk, District Amritsar. It is further pleaded that requisite information was given by the complainant to the opposite party No. 3 on the very next day of the accident. The officials of the opposite parties sent his surveyor namely Ashok Kumar resident of Outside Khazuri Gate opposite DAV Century School Batala, District Gurdaspur, who visited the accidental car, inspected the same and took photographs at Batala. It is further pleaded that the accidental car was got lifted from the place of accident to the M/s. Kalsi Motor Garage Jalandhar Road, Batala for getting it repaired. Since the car was badly damaged as such it could not be driven from the place of accident to the workshop as such the said Car was got towed after paying the towing charges of Rs.2200/- by the complainant.  It is further pleaded that rough estimate of the said car was got prepared by the complainant from M/s. Kalsi Motor Garage, Jalandhar Road, Batala to the tune of Rs.1,09,400/- and was submitted to the officials of the opposite party No. 3. It is further pleaded that the officials of the opposite parties asked the complainant to purchase the requisite spare parts etc. from the market and get the vehicle repaired. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the spare parts etc. to the tune of Rs.29,528/- and also paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the said M/s. Kalsi Motor Garage Jalandhar Road, Batala for the repair of the damaged car. It is further pleaded that bill of the spare parts bearing invoice No. 7466 dated 30.06.2017 issued by M/s. Inderjit Auto Parts, Shastri Nagar Batala. It is further pleaded that apart from the above said expenses incurred by the complainant, he was also made to pay a sum of Rs.3,398/- to the Surveyor Sh. Ashok Kumar appointed by the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant thus submitted a claim of Rs.85,776 to the opposite parties, however the opposite parties released only a sum of Rs.33,024/- which the complainants accepted under protest and without prejudice to their rights qua the entire claim amount. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties have issued a letter bearing reference No. 400000/LDR/2018 dated 08.02.2018 to the complainants in which they have alleged that the partial claim has been paid as per the assessment made by their surveyor Mr. Ashok Kumar vide his alleged report dated 29.09.2017 and repudiating the remaining claim of the complainants. It is further pleaded that said letter dated 08.02.2018 is absolutely illegal, ultravires, inoperative, ineffective, sham, bogus and without any just and proper reason. It is further pleaded that the said surveyor has been appointed by the opposite parties for conducting the alleged surveys of the accidental vehicles and since the opposite parties are regularly providing him work as such he has to dance to the tunes of the opposite parties and submit his reports to suit the interests of the opposite parties. No proper and legal objections have been mentioned in the above said letter for denying the entire claim amount to the complainants and for withholding the remaining amount of claim. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties have not even sent the copy of the alleged reports of the said surveyor. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties by not releasing the entire claim amount have committed deficiency in their service. The complainants have been making numerous visits and requests and reminders to the opposite parties, but they have not released the entire claim amount to the complainants. It is further pleaded that said act of the officials of the opposite parties have caused in convenience, mental and physical harassment and as such the opposite parties are liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant apart from the remaining claim amount of Rs.52,752/- thus the complainant is entitled to claim a total amount of Rs.1,02,752/-. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that a claim of Rs.1,02,752/- be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. It is further prayed that the amount of Rs.22,000/- may also be allowed as litigation expenses to the complainant. It is also prayed that the opposite parties be ordered to pay the interest at the rate of 18% P.A. on the claim amount from the date of accident till the actual payment, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is pleaded that the payment as per survey report has already been made and if complainant is not satisfied then he may approach to Civil Court. After making the payment there exist no relationship of insurer and insured between the parties and as such the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. It is further pleaded that the liability of answering opposite parties / Insurance Company is only as per survey report and the amount has been duly paid as per survey report. It is further pleaded that intimation of the alleged accident has been given to the insurance company. Sh. Ashok Kumar surveyor and loss assessor has been duly appointed and after physical verifying each and every part and after deducting the depreciation he submitted motor survey final report dated 29.09.2017. The said report contained the detail of assessment of loss. It is further pleaded that the surveyor is competent person and each and every loss has been duly covered under different headings. As such the liability of the insurance company is only as per survey report and as per terms and conditions of the policy. After making the payment there is no liability of the insurance company and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Rajinder Bansal, (Complainant) (Proprietor of M/s. Romesh Engineering Works, Gurdaspur) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith Self-Attested other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Janak Raj, (Assistant Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathankot) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 alongwith reply.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by the parties.

8.       Counsel for the complainants has argued that the car of the complainants which was insured with the opposite parties met with an accident on 15.06.2017 and intimation was given to the opposite parties and vehicle was taken to M/s Kalsi Motor Garage Jalandhar Road, Batala for repair who had given estimate of repair as Rs.109400/-. The opposite parties had deputed Mr.Ashok Kumar to assess the loss and inspite of fact that complainant had submitted claim of Rs.85,776/-, opposite parties released only Rs.33024/- and since the amount was accepted by the complainants under protest as such complainants are entitled to receive the balance amount alongwith interest.

9.       On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that car of the complainant is of 2012 model and the accident took place on 15.06.2017 and deduction of 40% was carried out by the surveyor vide his report Ex.OP-1 and amount was paid rightly to the complainants after making deduction as per terms and conditions of the policy.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

11.     It is admitted fact that complainant No.2 is owner of car No.PB-06-R-5257, model 2012 and the said car was insured with the opposite parties from 13.04.2017 to 12.04.2018. It is further admitted fact that the car of the complainant No.2 met with an accident on 15.06.2017 and was repaired at M/s. Kalsi Motor Garage Jalandhar Road, Batala. It is further admitted fact that M/s. Kalsi Motor Garage Jalandhar Road, Batala had given estimate of repair as Rs.109400/-. It is further admitted fact that vehicle repair bill of Rs.85,776/- was submitted by the complainant and opposite parties had made payment of Rs.33024/- to the complainant No.2 after deductions.

12.     To prove his case complainant No.2 has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of policy Ex.C1, Previous insurance cover note Ex.C2, copy of bill issued by Inderjit Auto Parts Ex.C3, copy of estimate of repair Ex.C4, copy of reply to letter Ex.C5 whereas opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Janak Raj Asstt. Manager, copy of report of surveyor Ex.OP-1, terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-2.

13.     Report of surveyor shows that the car if is of 2012 model and accident took place on 15.06.2017 and since the car was having life exceeding five years but not exceeding ten years as such as per the terms and conditions Ex.OP-2 clause 1 under the column of depreciation, depreciation of 40% was applicable. Perusal of report of surveyor Ex.OP-1 shows that by calculating the damages payable to the complainants the surveyor has rightly applied 40% depreciation on metal parts and 50% depreciation on plastic parts as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As such we do not find any ambiguity in the report of surveyor regarding assessment having been arrived by the surveyor.

14.     Accordingly, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

15.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

16.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Jan. 23, 2024                                                        Member.

*YP*