BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.173 of 2017.

Date of Instt.:25.07.2017.

Date of Decision: 15.05.2018.

Chatar Singh son of Mehar Chand resident of House No. 575, Daiyar, Teshil & District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

     Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Mandi Adampur Business Center, 61, Auto Market, Mandi Adampur District Hisar through its Branch Manager.

..Opposite Party.

Before:       Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.         

Present:      Sh. P.C. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. N.D.Mittal, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.                In brief, the facts of the present case are that the complainant is a registered owner of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-22-F/4630 and the same was insured with the OP vide insurance policy no. 426007311610000341 valid from 17.5.2016 to 16.5.2017.  It is alleged that the complainant had made the payment of insurance premium amounting to Rs. 887.00 to the OP.  Hence the complainant is consumer of the OP.  It is further alleged that the said insured vehicle met with an accident and an FIR was registered.  The complainant informed the OP about the accident.  It is further alleged that the OP deputed its surveyor who inspected the damaged motorcycle and the complainant was assured by the OP that all the expenses of repair of the motorcycle will be paid by the OP.  It is further alleged that the complainant got the repairing, denting and painting etc. of the damaged vehicle and the complainant submitted the bills of Rs. 19,380.00.  It is further alleged that the complainant had been released only a sum of Rs. 5,500.00 by the OP and the complainant had not been assigned any reason for not being released the remaining amount.

3.                It is further alleged that the complainant had served the legal notice dated 22.3.2017 upon the OP to make the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 13,880.00 but all in vain.  It is further alleged that the OP failed to make the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 13,880.00 to the complainant inspite of service of the notice.  The above said act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency and as such the complainant is entitled for receiving Rs.13,880/- as remaining amount of repairing charges of the motorcycle from the OP along-with a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.

4.                On being served the OP  appeared through its counsel and resisted the complaint by filing written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, locus-stand, maintainability etc., have been raised.

5.                In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not mentioned the date of accident and has also wrongly mentioned the bill of Rs. 19380/-, whereas it was only estimate and not bill.  It is further submitted that the OP after receipt of intimation of accident had deputed an independent surveyor who assessed the loss and the assessed amount had already been paid to the complainant.  It is further submitted that when the assessed amount was paid in the month of February 2017 and the same was accepted by the complainant as full and final payment without any protest and there is no need of giving reply to the said notice.

It is further submitted that the complainant has filed a false complaint. OP  further prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against him being devoid of any merits.

6.                The counsel for the complainant produced in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.C1/A along-with documents Ex.C1/B to C1/E and Marks C1 to C3. On the other hand Sh.Suresh Kumar  Chaudhary, Senior Manager tendered his affidavit as Ex.RW1/A in evidence on behalf of OP. OP also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R1 to R5 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have also examined all the material placed on record.  It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle bearing registration no. HR-22F/4630 was insured with the OP and the insurance was valid from 17.5.2016 to 16.5.2017.  The complainant had also made a payment of Rs. 887/- to the OP as premium.  It is further the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question met with an accident and regarding the same an FIR was lodged by the complainant and an intimation was also given to the OP regarding the occurrence and for settlement of the insurance claim.  Consequently, the OP appointed a surveyor, who inspected the motorcycle in question.  The complainant was also assured by the OP that all the expenses of denting, painting and repair will be borne by the OP.  Therefore, on the assurance of the OP the complainant submitted a bill of Rs. 19,380/- to the OP on account of expenses incurred by him for repair of the motorcycle.  However, the OP only made a payment of Rs. 5,500/- to the complainant and the remaining payment of Rs. 13,880/- has not been released to the complainant.  The abovesaid act on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.  On perusal of the material placed on record and by examining the pleading of both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant.  From perusal of the record, it is revealed that after receiving intimation the OP appointed a surveyor for inspection of the vehicle in question.  The surveyor after inspection of the vehicle assessed the total loss as Rs. 5589/- and net payable amount as Rs. 5362/-.  It is not disputed that the net payable amount as assessed by the surveyor has been paid to the complainant on 22.2.2017 (Annexure R-3) and this fact has also been admitted by the complainant.  There is absolutely no evidence of the aforesaid payment having been accepted by the complainant under any protest.  No protest letter sent to the insurer either prior to 22.2.2017 or soon thereafter.  Since the assessed amount has been received by the complainant without any protest as such the complainant is not entitled to claim any further amount. Moreover, the amount of loss has been assessed by the surveyor, who is an independent person and it is a settled proposition of law that assessment made by surveyor cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reasons.  Moreover, the complainant has pleaded that he has made a payment of Rs. 19,380/- for complete repair of the motor cycle in question and in support of the above contention he has relied upon document Exhibit C-1.  However, from perusal of Exhibit C-1, it is revealed that the same is an estimate and not the bill which has been paid by the complainant for repair of the vehicle in question.  It is also pertinent to mention here that in the insurance policy the IDV has been declared as Rs. 17,000/- whereas the complainant is demanding Rs. 19,380/- as repair charges, which is more than the declared value of the vehicle in question.  In view of the discussion as made above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to all the parties free of cost as provided in the rules.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum: 

Dt.15.05.2018.                                 

                    (M.K. Khurana)                                     (Raghbir Singh)

                        Member                                           President                                                                                       

                                                                               DCDRF, Fatehabad.