Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/457

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajnish Mahajan adv

12 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:457 dated 24.07.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 12.10.2021. 

 

Jaswinder Singh aged 37 years son of S. Darshan Singh, resident of House No.2159, Phase I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana at present resident of House No.10669, 7, Mini Secretariat Road, Kikar Das Mohalla, Bathinda.                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                      Versus

1. New India Assurance Company Ltd., #-9, Cannaught House, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Director/M.D.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regional Office: 4^th Floor, Surya Tower, 108, The Mall, Bagh Khazanchian, Ludhiana through its Chief Regional Manager.                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer         Protection   Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Rishi Jasra, Advocate.

OPs                                :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Chevrolet Beat car bearing registration No.PB-10FJ-1709. The car was insured by the OPs for the period from 17.12.2016 to 16.12.2017. During the subsistence of the policy, on 31.10.2017, the car met with an accident with a tractor bearing registration No.PB-19F-7573. As a result, the car was badly damaged. In this regard, DDR No.30 dated 31.10.2017  was lodged with Police Station Mehal Kalan, Ludhiana. Since the car was totally damaged in the accident, it was a case of total loss. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs. The surveyor visited the spot. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken to S.V. Motors, the authorized service station, who gave an estimate of repair amounting to Rs.3,25,638/- vide email dated 10.03.2018. However, the insured value of the car was Rs.2,70,000/-. However, the OPs refused to treat the vehicle to be a case of total loss and they have been insisting upon the repair of the vehicle. The complainant sent letters dated 13.03.2018, 02.04.2018, 23.04.2018 and 27.04.2018 to the OPs, but to no avail. The complainant applied for information under RTI Act in response to which the OPs sent letter dated 19.06.2018 and 25.05.2018 informing the complainant that the claim has been approved for a sum of Rs.1,01,644/- only whereas the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.2,70,000/-. In the meanwhile, the vehicle kept lying with the authorized service centre for a long time and a sum of Rs.12,000/-  has been charged by the service station as parking charges along with Rs.4500/- as towing charges. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to sanction the claim amounting to Rs.2,70,000/- and also to pay Rs.12,000/- towards parking charges and Rs.4500/- towards towing charges. The OPs be further made to pay compensation of Rs.2 Lac along with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been pleaded that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant himself did not get the vehicle repaired. On receipt of the claim intimation, the OPs deputed Mr. B.L. Goyal, surveyor and loss assessor who submitted the survey report dated 21.11.2017. The Ops have deputed engineer Sh. N.S. Dhillon, Surveyor and loss assessor to assess the extent of the loss. The surveyor visited M/s. S.V. Motors, where the vehicle was lying for repairs. The surveyor assessed the extent of loss damage caused to the vehicle. The surveyor also called upon the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and submit the final bill, but the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, kept insisting on settling the claim on total loss basis because the estimate cost of repair was more than the insured declared value of the vehicle. On the contrary, the surveyor told the complainant that the vehicle was very much repairable and the amount of the claim was below 75% of the value of the vehicle. The total loss can be considered only if the loss exceeds 75% of the value. The complainant, however, did not agree to get the vehicle repaired. The surveyor wrote letters dated 10.04.2018, 16.04.2018 and 25.04.201, but the complainant did not bother to meet the surveyor to discuss the matter. Thereafter, the surveyor after inspecting the vehicle, assessed the loss as Rs.1,06,000/- minus Rs.4336/- as salvage value and submitted his report dated 27.04.2018. The complainant was informed that the request for total loss cannot be considered as the amount of the loss did not exceed 75% of the value, but the complainant did not agree nor contacted the OP company for settlement of the claim. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C24 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Jaswant Singh, Manager of OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R7 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

6.                It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that after the accident, the condition of the car had been rendered beyond repair and therefore, the OPs were under an obligation to settle the claim on total loss basis keeping in view the insured value of the car which was Rs.2,70,000/- whereas the repair cost of the vehicle was found to be Rs.3,25,000/-. The counsel for the complainant has  further contended that the OPs did not settle the claim with a result that the complainant suffered acute mental pain and agony and also had to pay parking charges to the concerned authorized service centre for which the OPs are liable to be penalized and pay compensation in addition to insured value of the car.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant has been illegally insisting upon to settle the claim on total loss basis whereas, according to the survey report, the vehicle was in repairable condition and the assessment of the claim in terms of  repair was less than 75% of the insured value of the vehicle. The counsel for the OPs has further argued that the complainant has no right to dictate the terms to the OPs. Therefore, the complaint is without any merits and deserves to be dismissed.

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

9.                In the complaint, it has been alleged in para No.3 that S.V. Motors gave an estimate of repair of the car at Rs.3,25,638 vide email dated 10.03.2018, whereas the insured value of the car was Rs.2,70,000/- and in the given circumstances, the vehicle was to be treated to be a case total loss. In para No.4, it has been claimed that the surveyor inspected the vehicle, but refused to treat the vehicle as total loss. The complainant has placed on record photocopy of the estimate of repair given by S.V. Motors which is to the tune of Rs.2,33,579/-. There is another estimate dated 16.12.2017 given by S.V. Motors mentioning a sum of Rs.64312/-. However, no engineer, mechanic or owner of S.V. Motors has been examined by the complainant as witness in this case.

10.              On the contrary, the OPs have relied upon Motor Survey Report Ex. R2 given by the surveyor N.S. Dhillon estimating the loss at Rs.1,06,000/-. The report of the surveyor has not been challenged by the complainant on any ground nor any evidence has been led to pin point any discrepancy or infirmity in the surveyor’s report. Apart from that, as stated above, the complainant has not examined any expert witness of S.V. Motors to prove that the estimate given by S.V. Motors is correct and also to contradict the survey report. In the absence of any tangible evidence to contradict the surveyor’s report, coupled with the fact that the surveyor report has not at all been challenged in the complaint, it would be difficult to hold that the survey report is wrong and the claim of the complainant is required to be settled on the basis of total loss, as claimed by the complainant. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the complainant is directed to get the vehicle repaired and submit the claim which will be considered and reimbursed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Considering the fact that the accident took place on 31.10.2017 and the report of the surveyor Ex. R2 was received on 02.05.2018 as mentioned in the report itself which is after a gap of more than six months, it would be appropriate if the OPs are directed to bear 70% of the parking charges levied by the service station.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant is directed to get the vehicle repaired and submit the claim which will be considered and reimbursed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days of the lodging of the claim. Considering the facts that the accident took place on 31.10.2017 and the report of the surveyor Ex. R2 was received on 02.05.2018, the OPs shall bear 70% of the parking charges. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.10.2021.

Gobind Ram.