Complainant Tarsem Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, C.P. Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to pay the remaining claim amounting Rs.3,54,620/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its due till realization. Complainant has also claimed Rs.50,000/- on account of causing inconvenience, deficiency in service and mental harassment as well as economical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite party including Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he owned a truck bearing No.PB-06-V-3884, Ashok Leyland 3118 (Goods Carrier) exclusively for earning his livelihood as well as his family and is the owner of the said vehicle which was insured by the opposite party under policy No.36020031190100005224 for a IDV value of the truck i.e. Rs.17,10,000/- and the period of insurance was w.e.f. 10.03.2020 (12:00 am) to 09.03.2021 (11:59:59) and as such services of the opposite party was hired by the complainant and he is the consumer of the opposite party. It was pleaded that unfortunately above said vehicle met with an accident on 01.01.2021 and the same was damaged and DDR dated 047 dated 02.01.2021 was duly recorded in this regard at Gopali Police Station, Raigarh, Maharashtra. It was further pleaded that claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party regarding damage of the vehicle and surveyor was duly appointed by the opposite party namely Ajay A. Dalvi who took the photographs of the damaged vehicle and inspected the same and assessed the loss of the damaged truck. Complainant paid Rs.3501/- to the said Surveyor and Loss Assessor and duly completed all the formalities which were required by the opposite party for releasing the claim. Opposite party assured the complainant that claim amount would be paid after getting the vehicle repaired by him. Complainant repaired the truck in question from different automobile agencies at Zira Distt. Feropzepur (Pb.) and incurred about Rs.6,00,000/-from his own pocket. Complainant was having receipts/bill amounting Rs.5,43,620/- of the repaired vehicle and on the instructions of the opposite party same were sent to them in original by the complainant. It was also pleaded that claim of the complainant was proceeded by the opposite party and complainant was surprised when the opposite party paid only Rs.1,89,000/- to him whereas amount spent by the complainant on the damaged vehicle was more than Rs.6,00,000/- and when complainant was asked about it to the opposite party they assured him his remaining claim will be proceeded shortly and claim amount as per the original bill will be deposited in his account but the opposite party failed to make the full claim as per original bills/receipts which are in their possession and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It was next pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the policy complainant was entitled to get the full claim of the damaged vehicle. Complainant many times went to the local office of the opposite party regarding his claim but the opposite party did not consider his genuine and legal claim. A legal notice was also served by the complainant upon the opposite party on 22.7.2021 but till date the opposite parties did not consider his request. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the same has been filed by the complainant against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complainant misguided and mislead the Hon'ble Commission and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law. On merits, it was admitted that accident claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party and a surveyor namely Ajay A Dalvi was deputed by the opposite party to assess nature, cause and extent of loss who submitted his motor spot survey report on 05.01.2021. It was also admitted that opposite party paid Rs.1,89,000/- to the complainant as the opposite party always made the insurance claim as per the rules and provisions of the insurance Act after getting the loss assessed from its surveyor and it is to be paid after close scrutiny of the claim file by the insurance company and insurance company cannot go beyond the report of a surveyor and only the permissible claim was payable to the complainant by the opposite party. It was submitted that Arun Kumar & Co. Surveyors and loss assessors was deputed by the opposite party to conduct survey and to assess cause, nature and extent of loss and after inspection he submitted his report dated 08.04.2021 by assessing the net loss of Rs.1,91,880/- (i.e. Rs.1,00,755/-) on account of cost of spare parts and Rs.1,02,625/- as cost of repair less Rs.1500/- on account of excess clause). It was further submitted that after deducting Rs.10,000/- on account of salvage and another deduction net amount of Rs.1,89,000/- was payable to complainant as admissible under the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and as per the report of surveyor and terms and conditions of insurance policy final payment Rs.1,89,000/- was rightly made to complainant by the opposite party and now nothing is payable to complainant by opposite party. Moreover, a consent was given by the complainant in writing to opposite party by accepting and confirming the aforesaid loss as assessed by the surveyor. It was admitted that a notice dated 26.07.2021 was received by the opposite party and reply of the same was given by the opposite party to complainant on 02.08.2021. It was also submitted that complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has miserably failed to disclose deficiency, if any, in the services and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs under section 35-A C.P.C.
4. Alongwith the complaint, counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21.
5. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Raman Mishra Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OPW-1/A Alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/5 alongwith written statement.
6. Rejoinder on behalf of complainant filed.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
8. Tarsem Singh has filed the present complaint against N.I.A. Complainant is owner of truck No.PB-06-V-3884, Ashok Leyland 3118 and has placed on record insurance policy issued by N.I.A. as Ex.C-1, wherein the said truck has been insured for the period from 10.3.2020 to 9.3.2021. Complainant has further alleged that his truck met with an accident on 1.1.2021 and DDR for the same was entered at Khapoli Police Station Raigarh Maharashtra (Ex.C-3). On his intimation, opposite party's surveyor Ajay A Dalvi was appointed to assess the loss of the truck. Complainant after paying the fees to surveyor and completing necessary formalities brought the truck to Zira Punjab for repairs. Further complainant has attached bills for repair of truck amounting to Rs.5,43,620/- (Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-19) and as alleged that the amount spent on repairs is more than Rs.6,00,000/-. The IDV of the truck is Rs.17,10,000/-.
9. The opposite party on its part admits to the accident and deputing spot surveyor on 5.1.2021 and his report is placed as Ex.OP-1/2 and Ex.OP-1/3 wherein the net estimate is Rs.6,66,450/- but opposite party on its part has paid only Rs.1,89,000/- to the complainant.
10. From the facts placed above, it is clear that Tarsem Singh owner of the truck No.PB-06-V-3884, Ashok Leyland 3118 met with an accident on 1.1.2021 for which DDR was recorded on 2.1.2021 and surveyor assessed the damage to the vehicle within estimated amount of Rs.6,66,450/-. Complainant has spent an amount of Rs.5,43,600/- for the repair of the truck to bring it to roadworthy condition.
11. From the facts placed above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the amount spent on repairs of the said vehicle. Moreover opposite party has not placed on record any cogent document/evidence for disbursing the 'Lowest liability under the subject policy.
12. The present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,43,600/- minus the amount already paid alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. on the balance amount from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay an additional lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (R.S.Sukhija)
SEPT. 08, 2022. Member.
MK.
