Haryana

Ambala

CC/29/2011

PRADEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA.CO - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN MEHTA

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

              Complaint Case No.    : 29 of 2011

Date of Institution       : 20.01.2011

           Date of Decision         : 25.01.2017

 

 

Pardeep Chalana S/o Sh. Firangi Lal R/o H.No.709, Housing  Board Colony, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                               

                                                                                     ……Complainant.

                                                                                         Versus                  

The New India Insurance Company Ltd., 6269, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt

through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                    ……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Tarun Mehta, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Dev Batra, Adv. counsel for Op.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant being  owner of a Toyota Innova Taxi Car bearing No.HR37B(T)-8716 got his car comprehensively insured by renewal from OP vide cover note No.284692 valid from 18.10.2009 to 17.10.2010.   It has been submitted that on the night of 13.07.2010 at about 2.30-3.00 A.M.  while coming back from Rohtak to Ambala near Gohana on Panipat-Rohtak Road, the said car was being driven by Sushil Kumar met with an accident and was badly damaged after having struck against a fallen tree due to heavy rain and thunderstorm.  The driver of the car brought the vehicle at M/s Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Karnal. Then the complainant informed the OP about the accident and for further necessary action for the claim. Thereafter, the vehicle  was inspected by the surveyor.  It has been submitted that at the time of getting the vehicle insured, the complainant was informed that it was a cash less insurance for the vehicle of the complainant, however, the complainant was shocked to know at the time of getting the vehicle repaired that the policy is not cash-less when M/s Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. demanded Rs.50,000/- in advance for the repair of the vehicle which was ostensibly deposited by the complainant vide Receipt no.3072 dated 14.07.2010 under bonafide belief that all payment required to be paid to the  repairer would be reimbursed and thereafter the vehicle was got repaired and further amount of Rs.1,69,150/- and Rs.2270/- was deposited vide receipt no.30.07.2010 totaling a sum of Rs.2,21,420/- paid by complainant for repair of his vehicle which was to be indemnified by the Op as per policy. But as per complainant, he was shocked to   receive  a cheque  of Rs.56618/- dated  20.10.2010 against  the claim of Rs.2,21,420/- which has been  received  under protest by complainant.  So, a legal notice dated 20.11.2010 was sent to the Op to pay the balance amount of repairs but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, deficiency in service, jurisdiction and complainant is not a consumer.  On merits, it has been submitted that the insured/complainant has been issued Standard Commercial Vehicle Policy but spot survey or police report was not arranged by the insured. Surveyor Sh. T.P. Singh and Company was appointed on 13.07.2010 who inspected the vehicle at M/s Global Automobiles, Karnal who assess loss to the tune of Rs.93106/-. However, on going through the survey report, the Op insurance company observed that paint charges of Rs.12,500/- are not covered under the policy in question and also some necessary deductions,  a sum of Rs.56618/- was released to the complainant and thus prayed that there is no  deficiency in service on their part and  prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered affidavits as Annexures RA & RB alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. Case of the complainant is that his vehicle Toyota Innova Taxi Car  met with an accident on 13.07.2010 at about 2.30-3.00 A.M near Gohana as it struck against a fallen tree due to heavy rain and thunderstorm and a loss to the tune of Rs.2,21,420/- occurred to the complainant but surprisingly, the Op released a sum of Rs.56618/- against the amount incurred by complainant on repair of the car.  Counsel for complainant in support of his case has placed reliance on case laws titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Deepak Panda 2007(2) WBLR169 (NC) and Singireddy Sankara Vara Prasad Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2006()IVCPJ -384 (NC).

                        On the other hand, counsel for Op has argued that as per their surveyor’s report, loss to the tune of Rs.93106/- caused to the vehicle of complainant, however, after some necessary deductions, as sum of Rs.56618/- was released to the complainant as per calculations (Annexure R-9). Counsel for Op has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled Apna Surat Saree Centre vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Feb.) 2016 Pg. 479 whereby “amount paid under settlement voucher was on  the basis of survey conducted by neutral surveyor. Repudiation justified.”

5.                     We have gone through the calculations (Annexure R-9) whereby the loss caused to the complainant has been shown as below:-

                        i)         Parts Paid                                                  Rs.66862-00                                                      Fully paid as per surveyor’s

                                    Report.

                        ii)        Labour Charges paid                              Rs.12629-00

                                                                                    Total          ___________

 

                                                                                                       Rs.79491-00

                                   

                        iii)       75% payable                                            Rs.59618-00

                                    (As no spot survey of arranged

                                    By complainant  hence case

                                    Decided on substandard basis).

 

                        iv)       (-) excess clause                                      Rs.1000-00

                       

v)        (-) Salvage                                                Rs.2000-00

 

                                                                        Amount paid      Rs.56618-00                              

                        After going through the said calculation as well as the surveyor’s report and clarification (Annexure R-4 & R-5  and R-7), we are of the view that when Op has  assessed the total loss  caused to the vehicle of complainant to the tune of Rs.79491/- (including spare parts + labour charges) which too after obtaining report from their surveyor when the vehicle was undergoing repair at the workshop, so the deduction of 25% on sub-standard basis from the total amount of Rs.79491/- by OP is  not sustainable  and has wrongly and illegally been deducted by the Op and there is no justification with company to make such deductions on the ground that spot survey had not been arranged by complainant although the company has deputed their surveyor on the date of occurrence i.e. on 13.07.2010.  In this way, total loss has caused to the complainant as Rs.79491/- as per calculations placed on record by the OP. Admittedly, the complainant has received a sum of Rs.56618/- from the OP vide cheque dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure R-8).  So, rest of the amount of Rs.19872/- is to be paid to the complainant by OP. The case laws submitted by counsel for the parties are not applicable in the present case as it is a matter of common knowledge that insurance company did not release the claimed amount unless a receipt is obtained regarding full satisfaction when it is apparent on the record that there is a wrong deduction by the company as assessed by the surveyor.  However, the complainant has not rebutted the report of surveyor and clarification although he has claimed the amount of Rs.2,21,420/-  which was paid by him to M/s Globe Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. which cannot be accepted straightway. Accordingly, we partly allow the present complaint with costs and direct the OP to comply the following directions within a period of thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.19872/-(being 25% of Rs.79491/-) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

                        Copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:  25.01.2017.                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER