BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint No.144/2018.
Date of instt.:27.04.2018.
Date of Decision: 28.05.2019.
Govind Sharma (aged about 41 years) son of Sh.Tulsi Ram Sharma resident of Gali Parkhan Wali, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa District Sirsa.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1.The New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. Branch Office: Hisar Road, near Bus Stand, Sirsa- 125055 through its Branch Manager/Authorized person.
2.The New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. Head Office: New India Assurance Building, 87, MG Road, Fort Mumbai-400001 through its General Manager/Authorized person.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri Vijay Sharma Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Rakesh Bajaj, Adv. for the opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that he is owner of Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.DL-8C-NA-2151 and he got the same insured with Op No.1 vide policy No.35370031150100001860, having validity w.e.f. 06.11.2015 to 25.05.2016, after paying a premium amount of Rs.11,374/-. Unfortunately, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 01.12.2015. Due intimation was given to the Op No.1 and the vehicle was shifted to Krishna Motor Garrage, Sirsa for repair. The surveyor had inspected the vehicle on 03.12.2018 and in his report he had wrongly assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,925/- despite the fact that the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.2,29,868.36/-. All the bills were submitted to the Ops but they only paid an amount of Rs.42600/- to the complainant and illegally and wrongly withheld the remaining amount without any reason. The complainant requested the Ops to make the complete payment but they refused to do so. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint reply, whereby it has been submitted that present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. It has been further submitted that the claim lodged by the complainant has already been fully and finally settled/decided and the settled amount has already been paid to the complainant on 28.06.2016. After the intimation, the surveyor and loss assessor had inspected the vehicle and, therefore, he had submitted his report as per the provisions of insurance policy. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.44,760.53 and assessed the value of salvage to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. After receipt of the report from the Surveyor, the claim of the complainant was settled at Rs.42,600/- which amount has been paid to the complainant on 28.6.2016. It has been further submitted that complainant has shown excessive and exaggerated amount of repairs with a view to extract money from the ops. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops as the settlement of the claim was subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully.
5. Admittedly, the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.DL-8C-NA-2151 which was got insured with ops for period 6.11.2015 to 25.5.2016 on payment of premium. The vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 1.12.2015 at village Nezadella road Chattergarh Patti, Sirsa and due intimation was given to the ops who appointed Sh. O.P. Madan as Surveyor who inspected the vehicle and thereafter repair of the vehicle was carried out at the cost of complainant. As per version of complainant, he has spent an amount of Rs.2,29,868.36 on the repair of this vehicle, but however, the ops paid only Rs.42,600/- in the account of complainant.
6. In order to prove his plea, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents i.e. copy of policy schedule Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 22.11.2017 Ex.C3, copy of analysis of motor claim Ex.C4, copy of verification and investigation report Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and copies of bills and receipts Ex.C7 to Ex.C13.
7. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. K.S. Choudhary Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R1 who has deposed and reiterated averments made in the written statement. The ops have also furnished affidavit of Surveyor namely Sh. O.P. Madaan Ex.R2, copy of motor final survey report Ex.R3 and copy of payment voucher Ex.R4. The perusal of affidavit of Sh. O.P. Madaan Surveyor Ex.R2 reveals that he has deposed that New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sirsa entrusted/ appointed to conduct the survey and loss assessment of accidental vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8C-NA-2151. He inspected the aforesaid vehicle and gave his report to the company. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.44,760.53 and assessed the value of salvage to the tune of Rs.2000/- which was duly mentioned in the investigation report submitted by him to the company. The ops have solely relied upon the report of the Surveyor Sh. O.P. Madaan who has submitted his report Ex.R3. The perusal of Ex.R3 reveals that Surveyor has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.44,760.53 and given details of parts and labour charges, but however, learned counsel for complainant has contended that complainant has spent more than Rs.2,29,868.36 on the repair of his vehicle from his pocket and ops have not considered all the bills of parts and labour minutely and only assessed loss of meager amount of Rs.44,760.53 and there is a big difference between amount spent by complainant and loss assessed by surveyor. It is proved fact on record that ops had transferred the amount of Rs.42,600/- in the account of complainant, which is evident from copy of payment voucher Ex.R4. The perusal of affidavit of Sh. K.S. Choudhary, Senior Divisional Manager reveals that he has deposed in his affidavit in para no.5 that complainant had received this amount as full and final settlement of his claim without any protest etc. but perusal of evidence of ops reveals that they have not placed on record any receipt of complainant regarding receiving this amount of Rs.42,600/- as full and final settlement. So, it appears that they have deposited this amount at their own in the account of complainant and in our opinion the claim of complainant needs re-examination on the basis of bills.
8. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to re-examine the bills of spare parts and repair and bills of labour charges which have been submitted by the complainant to the company/ surveyor and thereafter pass a fresh order for settlement of the claim and to settle and pay the amount, if any which may become due to the complainant after deducting amount of Rs.42,600/- already paid to the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
