BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.163 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 14.05.2019

      Date of Decision: 07.02.2023

Raman Mgon son of Sh. Surinder Singh Resident of 84, Shankar Garden, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road,      Mumbai-400001; through its Managing Director cum Chairman.

2.       New India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.15-16, Improvement Trust Market, Jalandhar: through its Senior Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs No.1 and 2 are running the Business of insurance and they used to insure the vehicles on the payment of the premium/charges for the same, on yearly basis. The duty of the Insurer is to compensate/insure the loss of the Vehicle to the insured, in case of Accident, theft or other such losses, which are covered by the Policy of Insurance and for which the proper charges/premium is being paid in advance for the whole year i.e. the Period of Insurance. The OP No.2 is managing the affairs of the company at Jalandhar City; within the jurisdiction of this Commission, which is the Branch of the OP No.1, which is having its Head Office at Bombay at the address given above. The complainant took the Insurance Policy of his B M W car bearing registration no.DL3C-BQ-6161 having the policy no. 361001/31/16/011/00008206 from the OP No. 2. The said Policy was valid for One year from 21.2.2017 to 20.2.2018 and the premium amounting to Rs.28,251/- was paid and the Cover Note was issued by the OP No.2, acknowledging the payment, showing the validity of the Policy covering the amount of Loss up to Rs.13,00,000/-. During the validity of the said Policy of insurance of the said vehicle i.e. BMW bearing No.DL 3C- BQ- 6161, met with an accident on 19-01- 2018, and the said Vehicle was damaged. The Vehicle was being driven by the complainant who is having a Valid Driving License to drive the said Car/Vehicle. The complainant informed the OP No.2, immediately in respect of the accident and in respect of the damage caused to the Vehicle. The Car/Vehicle in question was sent to the Garage/workshop for its repair namely "Balwinder Motor Garage, G. T. Road, Chachoki, Phagwara District Kapurthala. The Estimate of the Damage was supplied by the said Garage, who is the expert in the Repair of the "BMW Car" amounting to Rs.1,82,988/- only. The OP appointed Sh.Rakesh Grover, Surveyor, to inspect the Vehicle and to Assess the loss of the Vehicle. The Said Surveyor of the company visited the Garage, where the Car was parked for repair. The said Surveyor of the OPs, inspected the vehicle in the Garage, which was damaged due to the accident, and also took the photographs of the vehicle from different angles. The said surveyor of the OPs was fully satisfied that the vehicle in question has met with an accident and has been damaged, and has been sent to the Garage for its repairs. He was also satisfied that the Repairs would cost the complainant about Rs.1,85,000/- for which the correct estimate was given. The said surveyor raised some demand from the complainant for giving the correct report of the accident of the vehicle and the damage caused to the Vehicle, for which the complainant did not agree. As the complainant did not agreed to satisfy the illegal demand raised by the Surveyor of the opposite parties, so the Said Surveyor submitted the false report in respect of the loss of the damage amounting to Rs.46,143/-. The said report of the Surveyor of the opposite parties is false and frivolous and is not binding on the rights of the complainant. The complainant spent Rs.1,25,000/- for the repair of the Vehicle which was damaged in the accident. The original receipts in respect of the amount spent for the purchase of the parts required and the amount spent on account of the Labour Charges have already been sent to the OP No. 2. The OPs did not agreed to the actual amount spent by the complainant which was supported by the Bills of the Parts and the Bill of the Workshop, but considering the false report of its surveyor paid a sum of Rs.38,756/- was paid to the complainant. The amount of Rs.38756/-paid by the opposite parties, in place of Rs.1, 25,000/- spent by the complainant, is illegal and the complainant being not satisfied approached the OP so many times personally and through E-mails, requested the OPs, to pay the remaining amount of the claim, but of no use. Being not satisfied with the rude behaviour of the Staff of the OP No.2, the complainant served the legal notice dated 27-07-2018, and the same was replied by the opposite Parties through their counsel, and did not paid the remaining amount of the Legal and Valid Claim of the complainant. The Stand of the OPs in rejecting the claim of the complainant is illegal, void and unconstitutional. At the time of the taking premium, the representative of the insurance companies, gives so many assurances to the consumers. But at the time of the giving legal, actual claims, the OPs find unnecessary faults with in order to reject the legal claims of the consumers. The complainant has also suffered mentally and he has been illegally harassed and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of balance amount of damages inclusive the amount which has to spent by the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till its realization of the amounts. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OPs and that being so the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that immediately on the receipt of information qua the damage caused to the vehicle in question in the alleged accident, Sh. Rakesh Grover was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss, who has submitted a survey report dated 29.04.2018 with my client, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.46,143.20 inclusive of GST @28% on the value of the parts to be replaced as per terms and conditions of policy of insurance issued to the complainant by OP No.2. The surveyor in his report dated 29.04.2018 has further assessed the salvage value of the damaged parts to the tune of Rs.1143.20. Since the bills submitted by the complainant were without GST and as such the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.38756/- was processed by the OP no.2 i.e. Rs.46143.20 minus Rs.1143.20 i.e. the salvage value of the damaged parts minus GST of Rs.6244.00. Accordingly an amount of Rs.38756/- was paid to the complainant by the opposite party no.2 on 22.05.2018. Thus the present complaint is not maintainable; being without any cause of action as such is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to issuance of policy of insurance by the OP No.2 in favaour of the complainant is admitted and the facts regarding accident to the vehicle in question is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OPs very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant took an insurance policy of BMW Car bearing registration No.DL3CBQ6161. The copy of the insurance policy has been proved on record by the complainant as Ex.C-1. The complainant met with an accident on 19.01.2018 and the vehicle was damaged. He has intimated the OP No.2 regarding the accident and got the estimate for repairing the car, which was, damaged in the accident. He has proved on record the estimate of BMG Ex.C-2, which was estimated to the amount of Rs.1,82,988/-. It is also not disputed that the Surveyor was appointed and he inspected the vehicle. The complainant has alleged that the Surveyor agreed for the estimate i.e. Rs.182,988/-, but the Surveyor gave the report and assessed the damage caused to the vehicle to the extent of Rs.46,143/-. The complainant spent Rs.1,25,000/- for repair of the vehicle, but the OP paid Rs.38,756/- to the complainant. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.                Ex.C-1 shows that the vehicle was insured covering the amount of loss upto Rs.13,00,000/- and the policy was valid from 21.02.2017 to 20.02.2018 and the accident occurred on 19.01.2018 during the validity of the period of insurance. Ex.C-2 is the estimate which shows the estimate for the repair of the car as Rs.1,82,988/-. These bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 were produced before the OPs at the time of filing of the claim. Ex.O-2 is the report of the Surveyor, which shows that the Surveyor has specifically mentioned the amount claimed by the complainant as Rs.1,24,488/- regarding the parts damaged during the accident. The note has been given at the bottom of this page under the column of Assessment that the insured submitted the estimate for parts for both right and left side front suspension, but no physical damage was observed on the left side front suspension, therefore only the parts and labour involved on right hand were taken into consideration in assessment. The parts relating to left side have been left by the Survyor and the amount estimated by the complainant has been assessed to Rs.1,24,488/-, but when the same was assessed, this amount was bifurcated between metal, rubber and glass parts. Out of Rs.1,24,488/-, the total amount of Rs.49,272/- have been assessed by the Surveyor. The Surveyor has nowhere mentioned as to why and how this amount has been assessed by him. In the entire report, nothing has been mentioned by him when he himself has admitted that the damages and repair was confirmed by him during the repair. Similarly, by granting the labour charges, which include denting and painting, claimed amount was Rs.58,500/-, whereas the amount has been assessed as Rs.19,100/-. The salvage amount of Rs.1143.20 has been deducted from the assessed amount. In the entire report, the Surveyor has nowhere mentioned about the amount disallowed by him while assessing the labour charges. The depreciation has been alleged by the Surveyor 50% on plastic and 40% on metal, which is allegedly the condition of the insurance policy. Perusal of schedule of depreciation mentioned in the insurance policy shows that all rubber/nylon/plastic parts, tyres and tubes, batteries and air bags shall be subject to the deduction of 50% of depreciation and for fiber glass components 30% of glass. As per this schedule, nothing has been mentioned that any amount is to be deducted for depreciation on metal and painting which the Surveyor has done while granting and assessing labour charges. Similarly, in the insurance policy nothing has been mentioned regarding the salvage amount to be deducted, which has been deducted from the assessed amount by the Surveyor. The Surveyor has wrongly assessed the amount without giving any reason and has wrongly not given the claimed amount. The amount of Rs.38,756/- has been given to the complainant out of the total assessed amount of Rs.46,143/-, whereas as per his report, the amount is to be assessed as per the amount claimed.

8.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed and thus the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to calculate and assess the  amount after considering the amount, disallowed without any reason, under the head ‘labour charges’ and pay the amount to the complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance and payment be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

07.02.2023                    Member                                President