Punjab

Moga

CC/16/163

Sukhchain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Sukhbeer Singh

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 163 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 23.11.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 08.03.2017

 

Sukhchain Singh aged 41 years son of Rulia Singh, resident of VPO Mudki, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. Mobile 94171- 66308.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       New India Assurance Company Ltd. 7 Gulabi Bagh, G.T. Road, Moga, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.       New India Assurance Company Ltd. Registered and Head office, New India Assurance Building 87, Mahatma Gandhi Roads, Fort, Mumbai, through its Authorized Signatory.  

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against New India Assurance Company Ltd. 7 Gulabi Bagh, G.T. Road, Moga, through its Authorized Signatory and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to make the payment of expenses incurred by the complainant on the repair of his vehicle i.e. Rs.1,51,000/- alongwith interest @ 2% per month. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant got insured his vehicle make Tata 4018 Trailer bearing registration no.PB-03Y-9005 from opposite party no.1 w.e.f. 2.8.2015 to 1.8.2016. On 20.04.2016 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Kadamgaon Village on National Highway no.31, District Kokrajhar. However, in the said accident, there is no loss of anybody life's or wealth and with the intervention of panchayat, matter has been compromised. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the accident and surveyor of opposite parties visited the spot and made report to the opposite parties  regarding the loss of the vehicle in question. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from Mehboob Motor Works N.H. 31, C. Road Gossaigaon, District Kokrajhar (Assam) on the asking of said surveyor of opposite parties. All the expenses were incurred by the complainant on the repair of vehicle from his pocket. Thereafter, the complainant many times approached the opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of amount incurred by him on repair of the his vehicle, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 4.11.2016 to opposite parties, through his counsel. But the opposite parties neither gave any reply to the said notice nor made the payment of expenses incurred by the complainant on the repair of his vehicle. Due to the act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and agony at the hands of opposite parties. Aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that no cause of action arose to the complainant against answering opposite parties; that the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the complaint is premature, as the claim has not been repudiated by the opposite parties till date; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Thus, the complaint may kindly be dismissed on this score; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. He has concealed, suppressed and misstated the material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receiving the information regarding the accident, the opposite parties immediately appointed Sh. Abhijit Beneerjee (Surveyor & loss assessor), who assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.1,04,500/-. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant got insured his vehicle Tata 4018 bearing registration no.PB-03Y-9005 for the period 2.8.2015 to 1.8.2016. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the accident and opposite parties immediately appointed the surveyor to assess the loss and he assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.1,04,500/-. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar Dua, Deputy Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as Ex. OPs-1 and copy of Surveyor Report Ex.OPs-2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.PB-03Y-9005 from opposite party no.1 w.e.f. 2.8.2015 to 1.8.2016. On 20.04.2016 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Kadamgaon Village on National Highway, District Kokrajhar. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the accident and surveyor of opposite parties visited the spot and submitted his report with opposite parties  regarding the loss of the vehicle in question. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from Mehboob Motor Works, Kokrajhar (Assam) on the asking of surveyor of opposite parties. All the expenses for the repair of vehicle in question were incurred by the complainant from his pocket. Thereafter, the complainant many a times approached to opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of amount incurred by him on repair of the vehicle in question, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 4.11.2016 to opposite parties. But the opposite parties neither gave any reply to the said notice nor made the payment of expenses incurred by him on the repair of his vehicle. Aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. As such, the opposite parties may be directed to make the payment of expenses incurred by the complainant on the repair of vehicle in question alongwith compensation and litigation costs.

8.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complaint is premature as the claim has not been repudiated by the opposite parties till date. He argued that it is admitted that the complainant got insured his vehicle Tata 4018 bearing registration no.PB-03Y-9005 for the period 2.8.2015 to 1.8.2016 from them and the complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the accident. Thereafter on receiving the information regarding the accident, the opposite parties immediately appointed Sh. Abhijit Beneerjee (Surveyor & loss assessor), who assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.1,04,500/-. It is prayed that present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9.                The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of vehicle Tata 4018, which was insured with opposite parties for the period from 2.8.2015 to 1.8.2016. Unfortunately, said vehicle met with an accident on 20.04.2016. As there was no loss to the life of any person, as such, the matter was compromised with the intervention of Panchayat. Due intimation regarding the said accident was given to opposite parties, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss to the said vehicle and as per the direction of said surveyor, the complainant got repaired his vehicle from Mehboob Motor Works, Kokrajhar (Assam). The said service centre made estimate for the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,71,400/-. Copy of the insurance policy is Ex.C-11, copy of estimate of repair is Ex.C-3. The said vehicle was repaired and service centre issued invoice and receipt dated 08.06.2016 for the repair of the vehicle for Rs.1,51,000/-, copy of invoice and receipt is Ex.C-4. The complainant requested the opposite parties to release the amount spent by him for the repair of his vehicle, but the opposite parties did not pay anything of claim to him till today. In reply, opposite parties submitted that the present complaint is premature, as opposite parties have not decided the claim of the complainant till date. They admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with them, which met with an accident and complainant duly informed the opposite parties regarding the said accident and they appointed a surveyor to investigate and assess the loss to the vehicle. The opposite parties submitted that the surveyor assess the loss to the vehicle to the extent of Rs.1,04,5000/-  vide his survey report Ex.OPs-2 and denied that the complainant spent Rs.1,51,000/- for the repair of his vehicle. As the surveyor assessed the loss of the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and complainant cannot get nothing more than the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

10.              We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments led by learned counsel for both the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with opposite parties, which met with an accident and complainant gave intimation regarding the same to opposite parties, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle. It is further admitted that the service centre made estimate for the repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,71,400/- vide estimate dated 22.04.2016, copy of which is Ex.C-3. It is further admitted that the service centre made final bill for the repair of vehicle of the complainant for Rs.1,51,000/- vide invoice and receipt dated 08.06.2016, copy of which is Ex.C-4.  Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that the surveyor appointed by them assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,04,500/- only vide his survey report dated 08.06.2016  Ex.OPs-2 as per terms and conditions of the policy after deducting depreciation, policy excess and salvage value.  The opposite parties have to yet decide the claim case of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

11.              Now, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant gave intimation regarding the accident to opposite parties on time and on it, opposite parties appointed surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle, who submitted his survey report dt. 08.06.2016 to opposite parties and assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,04,500/-. As per IRDA guidelines, the insurance companies have to settle the claim within three months from the incident. But in the present case, the opposite parties failed to settle the claim of complainant in this period. Even the surveyor has already submitted his final survey report on 08.06.2016.

12.              From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the act of opposite parties for not paying claim amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on their part. Hence the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,04,500/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor vide his survey report dated 08.06.2016 Ex.OPs-2 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 23.11.2016 till final realization. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 08.03.2017.

 

                                        (Bhupinder Kaur)                   (Vinod Bala)        (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                  Member                                Member                   President