BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.213 of 2015

Date of Instt. 19.5.2015

Date of Decision :07.10.2015

Shree Diagnostic, 179/1, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar through its Prop.Sh.Mukesh Gupta.

..........Complainant Versus

1. New India Assurance Co.Ltd, through its Senior Divisional Manager, City Branch (361 001) 16, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Corporate Head Office, The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, through its Chief Manager, 87- MG Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vivek Handa Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant is running diagnostic centre, known as Shree Diagnostic at the above said address. Complainant got insured his electronic equipment installed in the hospital alongwith contents fire, burglary, break down of office appliance and purchased insurance policy (consolidated) from opposite party No.1 for Rs.22,62,000/- for damage to electronic equipment and for Rs.3,91,500/- for breakdown of office appliances and the insurance policy No.36100148130700000011 valid from 9.9.2013 to 8.9.2014 and paid the premium of Rs.37,973/- to opposite parties vide receipt No.36181130000006606 dated 9.9.2013. On 5.9.2014, X-ray tube of X-ray machine was damaged/broken down without any negligent act on the part of complainant. As the cost of X-ray machine was Rs.2,70,000/- and in the X-ray machine, X-ray tube and Fluoroscope was insured for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. Bill of X-ray machine and detail of insured equipment given by Rakesh Grover, Insurance Surveyor, New India Assurance Company is attached. So, on the same day, complainant immediately telephonically informed at opposite party No.1 office about the damage, complainant also got hired the services of engineer namely Mr.Parkash Verma, Ultra Vision Medical Systems, manufacturers of high quality X-ray Machines, 452-A (First Floor), Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Engineer assisted the surveyor in assessing the actual damage caused to the X-ray tube in X-ray machine. Complainant purchased X-ray tube from Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre, Kalra Hospital, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar for Rs.90,000/-. The above said damage was caused during the subsistence of the insurance policy and immediately on the same day complainant informed opposite party No.1 about the loss and damage and opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor duly licenced by Central Government to visit the centre and to assess the actual damage caused to the above said equipment and to report about the actual loss and accordingly he visited the hospital premises of complainant and inspected the machine/equipment. The complainant filled the claim form duly singed by him giving every detail of loss and insurance particulars alongwith bill/receipt of purchase of X-ray tube which was accepted by the office but opposite party No.1 credited only Rs.10,185/- on 22.1.2015 to the account of complainant bearing No.07701131001395 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jalandhar. Under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in view of hefty amount of money received by opposite parties in the shape of premium, opposite parties are liable to pay to complainant the price of damaged equipment. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party insurance company to pay him balance price of X-ray tube i.e Rs.80,000/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on the part of opposite parties and that being so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the receipt of information qua the damage caused to the X-ray machine of the complainant, insured by the opposite parties vide policy of insurance bearing No.36100148130700000011 i.e Machinery Breakdown Policy for the period 9.9.2013 to 8.9.2014, Sh.Khanna Sanjiv, Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss, who has submitted his report dated 28.12.2014 with the opposite parties, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.14685/- less excess clause. Further salvage value of the X-ray tube was to be collected from the complainant and its value was assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Acting on the report of the surveyor, an amount of Rs.10185/- was paid to the complainant after deducting Rs.4500/- i.e Rs.2500/- on account of excess clause and Rs.2000/- on account of the salvage value of the damaged X-ray tube. Thus the due amount as per survey report has been paid to the complainant, thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.CA/1 to Ex.CA/7 and evidence of complainant was closed by order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP1/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed evidence.

5. Counsel for the complainant did not address arguments on five dates and as such he was directed to file written arguments on 15.9.2015 and case was adjourned to 18.9.2015 but on 18.9.2015 written arguments were not filed and then case was adjourned to 23.9.2015 for filing written arguments and last opportunity was granted for this purpose and case was adjourned to 30.9.2015 but on 30.9.2015 again the complainant did not file written arguments and as such the case was adjourned for 7.10.2015 for orders with liberty to the complainant to file written arguments before the date fixed but no written arguments were filed by him. So we are deciding the present complaint after going through the record and hearing the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

7. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. It is not disputed that X-ray machine of the complainant was insured with opposite party insurance company. The tube of the X-ray machine was damaged and complainant informed the insurance company in this regard. He purchased X-ray tube from M/s Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre vide receipt Ex.CA/4 for Rs.90,000/-. The complainant lodged claim with opposite party insurance company who appointed surveyor who after survey submitted his report Ex.OP6 assessing loss at Rs.14685/- after applying the average clause and depreciation @ 80% on X-ray tube. The value of the salvage of X-ray tube was assessed as Rs.2000/-. In the survey report Ex.OP6 it is mentioned that sum insured for unit is Rs.1,90,000/- whereas its value is Rs.3,62,250/-, hence average clause is applicable. In survey report it is mentioned that as per registration certificate provided by the insured, this unit was installed/purchased at insured premises on 12.8.2010 and is four years old and depreciation @ 80% is applicable on the X-ray tube head. Ex.OP3 is document in this regard wherein, in case of X-ray tube actual value in percentage of new replacement value is mentioned as 20% where age is less then 52 months and more than 46 months. So the value of the replaced X-ray tube was taken as 20% after applying depreciation @ 80%. So according to the survey report, the opposite party insurance company has rightly given the claim amount to the complainant. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to the remaining amount of the newly purchased X-ray tube.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

07.10.2015 Member Member President