BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Randhir Singh son of Shri Ranjit Singh, resident of House NO.119, Sector 14, Village Sarangpur, UT, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      National Insurance Company Ltd., through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office XV, 8, Indian Exchange Place, 1^st Floor, Kolkata-700001.

2.      M/s Magma Finance Corporation Limited, SCO 75, Top Floor, Phase IX, SAS Nagar Mohali.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Ajay Mehra, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP-1

OP-2 exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant got his new vehicle (registered as No.PB-65-F-5077) comprehensively insured from OP-1 through OP-2 for the period from 17.8.2007 to 16.8.2008.  On 2.7.2008 the said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged near Sahiba Ganj Masjid, District Sultanpur (UP) regarding which FIR No.559 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the offending truck.  In the second week of July 2008, the claim was lodged alongwith necessary documents.  After due formalities, he got his truck repaired from the authorized workshop i.e. M/s Pasco Motors, Chandigarh and spent a sum of Rs.3,26,106/-.  He further got the driver cabin of the truck repaired from M/s New Matharu Body Makers, Manimajra, Chandigarh, as the same was not done by M/s Pasco Motors, and spent a sum of Rs.88,000/-.  He also spent a sum of Rs.40,000/- for transport of the damaged vehicle.  He visited the surveyor as well as office of OP-2 but there was no response and perforce he had to pay the entire amount to the repairers from his own pocket.  He received memo dated 26.3.2009 from OP-1 whereby he was asked to submit verified copy of challan, bills and cash memos for repair and replacement of parts/vehicle and re-inspection report of cabin which were sent by him through his reply-cum-legal notice dated 29.4.2009, except the inspection and re-inspection report which were with the surveyor of OP-1.  However, to his utter shock he again received a memo dated 23.6.2009 with the request to send the documents again. Left with no option he gave legal notice-cum-reply dated 3.7.2009 and resubmitted the necessary documents, but still nothing was done. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 submitted that the claim was lodged with OP-2 on 12.1.2009 and it was observed that documents were not complete for processing and disposing of the claim regarding which the matter was taken up with the financer (OP-2) and the complainant was also informed vide letters dated 26.3.2009 and 23.6.2009.  It has been admitted that the claim was surveyed by Sh. R.S. Arora, surveyor and loss assessor who vide his report dated 8.11.2008 observed that the complainant, of his own, had dismantled the cabin of the vehicle in addition to cutting of the dash board cowl accessory left side and the same was not damaged in the accident.  The damage caused to the engine parts cannot be included in the damages detailed in the spot surveyor report which was so confirmed from the spot survey report that these were consequential damages occurred while transporting the vehicle.  It has been submitted that the claim was assessed on non-standard basis as such and total net loss was assessed for Rs.1,18,077/-.  It has been denied that the complainant fulfilled the required formalities or that he was entitled to payment of Rs.4,54,106/-. The receipt of letter dated 29.4.2009 has also been denied. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their short written reply OP-2 pleaded that it was only a financer and that the present dispute only related to non granting of the insurance claim by OP-1 as per policy of insurance taken by the complainant from them and thus it has no role.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

Subsequently when the case was listed for evidence, neither the evidence was led nor anyone turned up on behalf of OP-2, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and OP-1 and have also perused the record. 

6.             The contention of the complainant is that he spent a sum of Rs.3,26,106/- on the repair of the truck done by Pasco Motors regarding which he has submitted the bill Annexure P-3 and in addition to it he paid Rs.88,000/- for the repair of the driver cabin which amount was paid vide Annexure P-4 and had also paid Rs.40,000/- on account of transport charges vide Annexure P-5. On the other hand the contention of the OP is that infact the complainant is entitled only to a sum of Rs.1,18,077/- as assessed by the surveyor. They have disallowed the claim regarding the repair of the cabin and other consequential damages to the engine because their contention is that this part was not damaged in the accident but the engine and the cabin were cut/dismantled by the complainant to transport the same to Chandigarh for its repair.  This contention has been denied by the complainant. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to FIR copy of which is Annexure P-2.  This FIR was lodged by Ashwani Kumar, driver of some other truck no.HR68 A 8777. According to him he was coming from Jharkhand to Punjab and reached near Sahib Ganj Masjid when he noticed truck no. HR 38 N 0516 coming from the side of Lucknow, which was being driven harshly and negligently and struck against truck no. PB65 F 5077.  Due to the accident Mahmood Alam, driver and Guru Preet, Khalasi (of truck no. PB65 F 5077) were stuck inside the front portion of the truck and died at the spot.  According to him the front portion of the truck (PB65 F 5077) was badly damaged, the cabin of the truck was cut (dismantled) to take out their dead bodies. The FIR which is the earliest version therefore falsifies the contention of the OP. The surveyor who in now alleging that the engine/front portion of the said truck was cut into pieces subsequently for transporting the truck to Chandigarh did not even record the statement of said Ashwani Kumar. He infact presumed this fact without any evidence which is to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The claim therefore could not have been disallowed on any such ground as alleged by the OP.

7.             The complainant has also produced the receipt Annexure P-4 vide which a sum of Rs.88,000/- was paid to New Matharu Body Makers for the repair of the driver cabin which had been dismantled and damaged in the accident.  The complainant is entitled to the said amount also.

8.             The complainant has also attached Annexure P-5 showing that he paid Rs.40,000/- as towing charges for transporting the truck from Sultanpur to Manimajra.  The Learned Counsel for the OP No.1 argued that this amount is on the higher side and the towing charges to this extent cannot be allowed.  We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.20,000/- should be allowed as towing charges.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,26,106+88,000+20,000=Rs.4,34,106/-. The complaint therefore succeeds and is hereby allowed.  The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.4,34,106/- alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @9% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e.17.08.2009, till the payment is actually made to the complainant. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.