Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he insured his vehicle bearing RC No.PB04N1000 with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide policy No. 36020131160100003348 valid for the period upto 26.20.2018. Further alleges that the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 13.04.2017 and regarding the said accident, the complainant informed the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who deputed its surveyor for inspection of the insured vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the reimbursement of his claim for an amount of Rs.47,316/-, but the Opposite Parties sanctioned the less claim for Rs.11,200/- and retained the remaining claim of the complainant without any reason and said amount of Rs.11,200/- has been transferred directly in the account of the complainant through net banking. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to make the remaining claim of the insured vehicle, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the remaining laim of Rs.36,116/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of the claim and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for causing huge mental and physical agony.
b) To pay the litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-
c) Or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was thoroughly processed and as per the report of the surveyor, the complainant was entitled to Rs.11,200/- and the same stands paid to the complainant which he accepted without ay reservation. As per the detailed report of the surveyor, H.C.Raichan & Company who gave very detailed report dated 13.06.2017 after thorough scrutiny and assessment of all aspects pertaining to this matter assessed Rs.11,200/- as net assessed loss and this report is absolute. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7, CW3/C and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.RA alongwith copy of document Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and close the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions of the complainant and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The case of the complainant is that the complainant insured his vehicle bearing RC No.PB04N1000 with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide policy No. 36020131160100003348 valid for the period upto 26.20.2018. Further alleges that the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 13.04.2017 and regarding the said accident, the complainant informed the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who deputed its surveyor for inspection of the insured vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the reimbursement of his claim for an amount of Rs.47,316/-, but the Opposite Parties sanctioned the less claim for Rs.11,200/- and retained the remaining claim of the complainant without any reason and said amount of Rs.11,200/- has been transferred directly in the account of the complainant through net banking. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to make the remaining claim of the insured vehicle, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the claim of the complainant was thoroughly processed and as per the report of the surveyor, the complainant was entitled to Rs.11,200/- and the same stands paid to the complainant which he accepted without ay reservation. As per the detailed report of the surveyor, H.C.Raichan & Company who gave very detailed report dated 13.06.2017 after thorough scrutiny and assessment of all aspects pertaining to this matter assessed Rs.11,200/- as net assessed loss and this report is absolute. As per the report of Surveyor of H.C.Raichan & Company Ex.R5 produced by Opposite Party itself, said surveyor made detailed report and assessed the Net loss assessed to Insured vehicle to the extent of Rs.11,200/- and it has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the report of the Surveyor cannot be brushed aside without valid reasons. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as “Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II (2010) CPJ 1 (SC)” in which it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the report of the Surveyor is to be given due importance and weight. Hon’ble National Commission in case cited as PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, III(2008) CPJ 158 (NC), has been held that “Surveyor Report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary”. Further in case New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2003(3) CPR 136 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has observed that “report of Surveyor appointed under the provisions of Insurance Act has to be given greater importance.” In M/s Natain Cold Storage & Allied Industries Ltd. v . Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. 2003(3) CPR 114 (NC) it has been observed “surveyor’s report in the insurance claim is an important document which cannot be brushed aside easily.” Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Bhawana Kumar versus General Manager Varun Webres Ltd. & Anr, 2008(4) CPR 82 (NC). Not only this, recently Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case National Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s.Kiran Collector & Boutique 2019 (1) CLT 384 (NC), decided on 24th July, 2018 has held that “General rule is that the surveyors are appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938 and their reports are to be considered for settlement of insurance claims- The reports can not be brushed aside without any cogent reasons.” Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ankur Surana v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (2013) CPJ 440 (NC), wherein it has been observed that "it is well established by now that the report of the surveyor is an important document and the same should not be rejected by the Fora below unless cogent reasons are recorded for doing so. The State Commission has stated that it did not see any legal ground before the District Forum to reject the report of the Surveyor. The report of the surveyor should have been rebutted on behalf of the complainant/petitioner since the respondents/OPs had filed the surveyor's report as their evidence." On the other hand, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to rebut this detailed report of the surveyor by filing any cogent or convincing evidence on the record. In view of this, we find no force in the complaint filed by the complainant. Moreover, the assessed amount of Rs.11,200/- has already been received by the complainant in his account.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
