BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 241 of 2017
Date of Institution : 27.9.2017
Date of Decision : 12.3.2018.
Virender Kumar son of Shri Veer Chand, resident of Ward No.4, Mellawali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Branch at Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the owner of a motor cycle HF Deluxe bearing registration No.HR-24W/8698, which was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. vide policy no.35370031160300008192 w.e.f. 22.1.2017 to 21.1.2018. That the aforesaid motor cycle met with road side accident with a auto-rickshaw on 1.7.2017 and motor cycle was badly damaged. The claim was duly lodged with the opposite party under the policy. That a Surveyor namely Shri S.K. Jain was appointed by the opposite party for the assessment of the loss and thereafter the op started putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant demanded a copy of survey report time and again, but he did not supply the copy. However, later on the complainant got repaired his vehicle from Deep Automobiles by spending huge amount of Rs.6602/- from his own pocket, as the op has refused to pass the claim of complainant without giving any sufficient cause or reason and withheld the claim of complainant illegally. That due to act and conduct of op, the complainant has undergone a heavy financial loss as his work of AC repairing suffered badly. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the op on 5.6.2017 but to no effect Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that the intimation regarding the accidental loss of motor cycle No.HR-24W/8698 was received by insurance company and accordingly Shri S.K. Jain, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed who conducted the survey in the presence of complainant/ insured and asked complainant/ insured to start the repair proceedings as the motor cycle was repairable. On 18.7.2017, Sh. S.K. Jain, Surveyor and Loss Assessor submitted his final report to the company assessing loss of motor cycle worth Rs.1839/-. Further process can only be adopted/ taken by the insurance company after receiving and completing requisite formalities by the insured and after submitting the bills of repairs. But the insured has not submitted the original bills of repairs and has not produced vehicle for re-inspection and has also not submitted requisite documents, so finally on 26.9.2017 insurance company has repudiated the claim of insured for non fulfillment of above said requirements. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Ex.CW2/A, postal receipt Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copy of invoice Ex.C3, copy of policy schedule Ex.C4, copy of registration certificate Ex.C5 and copy of aadhar card Ex.C6. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. Karan Singh Chaudhary, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 23.9.2017 Ex.R2, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R3, copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Ex.R4, copy of motor survey report Ex.R5, Photostat copy of photograph Ex.R6 and copy of estimate Ex.R7.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is the owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-24W/8698 and same was insured with opposite party on payment of premium and policy no. 35370031160300008192 was issued for the period 22.1.2017 to 21.1.2018. It is further undisputed fact that said motor cycle met with a road side accident on 1.7.2017 as a result of which the motor cycle of the complainant was damaged. Due intimation was given to the opposite party and claim was lodged with the op. The estimate of loss was also submitted. Sh. S.K. Jain, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed to assess the loss of the vehicle of complainant. Said Sh. S.K. Jain, Surveyor inspected the vehicle prior and after repair and submitted his report which is on file as Ex.R5 by which he recommended loss to the tune of Rs.1839/- only though there was estimate of Rs.11,860/- and complainant had submitted bill of Rs.6602/- for repair of his vehicle which was charged by the repairer namely Deep Automobiles, Sirsa vide invoice Ex.C3.
6. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has further deposed that Surveyor namely Sh. S.K. Jain was putting of the deponent on one pretext or the other when complainant demanded copy of the survey report time and again but he did not supply the same. The complainant submitted bills of repair with the opposite party and requested op to pass the claim but however, op withheld survey report illegally. The complainant has also furnished affidavit of one Raj Kumar as Ex.CW2/A who has also deposed on the lines of deposition of complainant. Further complainant has relied upon above said documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, opposite party in order to prove its defence plea has furnished affidavit of Sh. Karan Singh Chaudhary, Senior Divisional Manager of New India Assurance Company Limited, Sirsa as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated averments made in the written statement. He has further deposed that on 18.7.2017, Surveyor namely Sh. S.K. Jain submitted his final report to the company assessing loss of motor cycle worth Rs.1839/- but insured has not submitted original bills of repair and also not submitted requisite documents and finally on 23.9.2017 insurance company has repudiated the claim of the insured for non fulfillment of abovesaid requirements. Further, opposite party has placed on file documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that complainant has not submitted the original bills of repair and requisite documents but however, opposite party has not placed on file any letter of repudiation rather relied upon letter dated 23.9.2017 Ex.R2 by which complainant was called upon to supply the requisite information and that he has not submitted the original bill though the original bill was duly submitted to the surveyor by the complainant. Even during course of arguments, learned counsel for op has not made any offer that they are ready to pay the bill of repair to the complainant as copy of the bill has already been supplied to the op during proceeding of this complaint. The op has mainly relied upon report of surveyor Ex.R5 which its speaks about the truth. As per contention of op, bill was not submitted by the complainant, then under what circumstances, the surveyor assessed the value of the loss of the parts without going through the repair bill. It appears to be only imaginary contention of the opposite party. Moreover, as per report of the surveyor, an estimate of Rs.10,460/- was submitted from Deep Automobiles, Sirsa, but however, he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1839/- only qua the rubber parts but he has not considered the value of the metal parts which were got replaced in the vehicle of complainant as per report of the surveyor. Further more, the perusal of the repair bill Ex.C3 reveals that repair was got carried out/ replaced parts under serial no.1 to 15 but however the surveyor has mentioned in his report the parts from serial no.1 to 8 but he has not given his reasons while denying claim qua other parts of the vehicle which were got replaced by complainant from the repairer. So, it appears from the report of surveyor that it is a self contradictory and same is not reliable and trustworthy and does not inspire any confidence while deciding claim of complainant and deserves to be ignored. The Surveyor has not assigned any reason for approving the labour charges only to the extent of Rs.124/- while carrying out repair of 15 parts. So, it appears that report of the surveyor is quite partial and biased and he has not submitted the report on merits. Further more, the op has not placed on record the affidavit of the surveyor in support of his report due to reason best known to him. The surveyor has not mentioned in his report that what parts of the vehicle were fully damaged, partial damaged and repairable or not repairable. So, we are of the considered opinion that surveyor has not considered all these facts while submitting his report to the insurance company and the insurance company has illegally and arbitrarily settled the claim of complainant wholly relying upon unreliable and untrustworthy report of the surveyor, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
8. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.6602/- as per bill of the repair which has been paid by complainant to the repairer, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the said amount from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation and further an amount of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 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:12.03.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
