Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 463.
Instituted on : 15.12.2014.
Decided on : 21.04.2016.
Vinod Singh Malik son of Sh. Sukhbir Singh resident of 1084 Sector-3, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch office Narain Complex IInd Floor, Civil Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.A.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle Car Alto K-10 bearing Registration no.HR-12-S-5392 and the same was insured with the opposite party. It is averred that on 05.02.2014 the said vehicle met with an accident at Budhana Distt. Muzafar Nagar and the vehicle was badly damaged in that accident. It is averred that on 07.02.2014 the complainant informed the opposite party about the accident vide complaint M-119 and the estimate of damages was also attached with the complaint obtained from Deep Service Station, Rohtak. It is averred that opposite party deputed a surveyor and has only sanctioned Rs.3500/- which the complainant refused to accept as the actual loss to the vehicle was Rs.13150/-. It is averred that the act of opposite party of not disbursing the lawful claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim of Rs.13150/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the opposite party deputed Sh. Naveen Surveyor to assess the loss and he submitted his report in the company on 12.03.2014 . As per survey report loss was assessed Rs.3900/- but the complainant firstly accepted the said cheque and lateron refused to accept the cheque of Rs.3900/- on 28.03.2014. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is denied that complainant submitted the loss of Rs.13150/-. It is averred that the opposite party is ready to pat Rs.3900/- as per survey report and as such dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/F and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and has closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party. It is also not disputed that the alleged vehicle met with an accident and the opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R2 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.3900/- but the same has not been accepted by the complainant on the ground that he had actually suffered the loss to the extent of Rs.13150/- which was not considered by the opposite party. Regarding the assessment of loss, we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2013(3)CLT 126 titled Kaur Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside,” Hon’ble National Commission in 1(2010)CPJ 272 (NC) titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subash Kumar, has held that: “Surveyor’s report has considerable evidential value, cannot be ignored, unless discredited by producing contrary evidence- Settlement of claim on repair basis directed as per surveyor’s report”. Hon’ble National Commission in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that: “Insurance-Quantum dispute-Loss assessed by Surveyor awarded by State Commission-Amount spent on repairs claimed by complainant-Surveyor’s report to be given due weightage-Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute-Complainant free to approach Civil Court/IRDA/Arbitration-Time spent before Consumer Fora to be set off”. In view of the aforesaid law which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the claim as per report of surveyor.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the opposite party shall pay the amount of loss as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.3900/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.15.12.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
