BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

Complaint No.148/2018.

Date of instt.:08.05.2018. 

                                                                     Date of Decision: 22.05.2019.

Subhash Chander aged about 40 years son of Shri Nihal Singh resident of village Rampura, Bishnoian Tehsil & District Sirsa.

                                                                            ……….Complainant.

                                                Versus

National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office at Chautala Road, Near LIC, Mandi Dabwali Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

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 Vinod Kumar Bishnoi Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Aashish Singla, Adv. for the Opposite party.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that he is owner of a vehicle Tralla bearing registration No.RJ-31GA-8855 and he got the same insured with Op vide insurance policy No.420703/ 31/15/6300004798, having validity w.e.f. 31.03.2016 to 30.03.2017. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and the same was badly damaged. Due intimation was given to the Op and the vehicle was got repaired by the complainant on its own expenses. The complainant has spent Rs.10,00,000/-  for repairing the vehicle, replacement of parts and crane charges and thereafter, he had submitted all the requisite documents alongwith bills to the Op but  the op has only paid a sum of Rs.5,25,000/-. The complainant requested the Op to make the complete payment but they refused to do so. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  Hence, this complaint.  

2.   On notice, Op appeared and filed its reply, whereby it has been submitted that the 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 being filed after concealing the material facts from this Forum. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not spent such huge amount. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in view of the guidelines of IRDA the Op had appointed M.S.Uppal & Associates, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for assessment of loss, who had submitted his detailed report and the complainant had shown his satisfaction with the said report.  The complainant has already received the full and final amount with full satisfaction and with his free consent and he has not raised any objection, therefore, question of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all. 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 the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The complainant has not furnished his affidavit and has not tendered the documents in his evidence even availing the number of opportunities for his evidence. The evidence of the complainant was closed by order on 28.03.2019.

5.       On the other hand, the opposite party has tendered the affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar Gumber, Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa as Ex.RW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the written statement. The opposite party has also tendered the documents as Ex.R1 statement of account, Ex.R2 Bill check report, Ex. R3 & Ex.R4 report of Surveyor and loss assessor, Ex.R5 letter dated 7.10.2016, Ex.R6 Certificate of Insurance Cum Policy Schedule.

6.       Undisputedly, the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Tralla bearing registration No.RJ-31GA-8855 and he got the same insured with Op vide insurance policy No.420703/31/15/6300004798, having validity w.e.f. 31.03.2016 to 30.03.2017 under a insurance contract. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and the same was badly damaged. The intimation was given to the op and the surveyor was appointed by the op, who inspected the vehicle after accident. The complainant had lodged the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- in all ( i.e. bill of Rs.12,000/- on account of the Heera Crane Service charges, Rs.4,60,000/- bill of Jeet Agriculture Works and bill of Rs.5,31,000/- of Bansal Motors). The surveyor of the op inspected the vehicle and the parts and also inspected the replaced parts and submitted his report is Ex.R4. It is also undisputed fact that the payment of the amount which was assessed by the Surveyor has been made by the op to the complainant. The complainant has claimed the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith up to date interest and also claimed of Rs.50,000/- for compensation for harassment and humiliation etc.

7.       The perusal of the file reveals that, the complainant have placed only photocopy of the bills but not the original bills of repair of different parts of the said vehicle.

8.       During the course of the arguments, the Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that the surveyor has not considered the original bills which has been submitted by the complainant to the insurance company.

10.     On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the op has strongly contended that the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.3,25,000/- vide report Ex.R4, and the said amount has already been paid to the complainant and the op cannot pay any amount more than the amount assessed by the surveyor and also relied on the case law Sidhnath Choubey Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2017(3)C.P.R551, Universal Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. 2007(1) C.P.J. 107. The perusal of the record of surveyor reveals that the surveyor has assessed the cost of repair of the load body of Rs.80,000/-, whereas, the complainant has claimed Rs.4,00,000/- spent on the body repair on the load body. Similarly, the complainant had claimed the Crane Service charges as Rs.12,000/- whereas, surveyor has assessed of Rs.2500/- and further complainant has claimed Rs.5,31,000/- on account of the spare parts purchase from Bansal Motors whereas, the surveyor assessed the parts to the tune of Rs.4,44,000/-. So, it appears that there may be any difference of opinion between the complainant and the surveyor qua the assessment of loss of the vehicle.

11.     In view of the above discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint with a direction to the Op to re-examine the bills of repair as well as parts of the vehicle and also labour charges and thereafter, re-assess the loss of the complainant and in case the complainant is found entitled, thereto, any amount which may become payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy, thereafter, settle and pay after deducting the  payment made to complainant within a period of 30 days from receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:22.05.2019.                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                         Member                                                              

                 DCDRF, Sirsa           DCDRF ,Sirsa