Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/140/2016

Sanjay kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar

11 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 140 of 2016

                                                                Date of Institution    : 08.07.2016

                                                                Date of decision:      : 11.03.2024

 

Sanjay Aggarwal son of Sh. Radha Kishan Aggarwal C/o M/s Rameshwar Dass Radha Kishan, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. National Insurance Company, Circular Road, Opposite SBI, Near Clock Tower, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

2. Daya Ram Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, House No.1035 Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Khushi Ram Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OP No.1.

None for OP No.2.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant is proprietor of firm M/s Rameshwar Dass Radha Kishan and he got insured Innova Car bearing regn. No. HR-61A-5142 with OP No.1 for the period from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2014.  The car met with an accident on 03.02.2014 at about 5:30 P.M. in the area of village Mayna, Jhajjar. In this regard, DDR was got registered at police station concerned. The car was brought to Satyam Toyota, Rohtak for repairs. Surveyor came at the workshop and estimate of Rs.4,86,845.58p was prepared. It is submitted that on 24.02.2015, the workshop informed about the replacement of tale gate and tepit cover etc. After that, the workshop sent pre-invoice as well as information with actual repairs bill dated 24.02.2014 to surveyor on 10.03.2014. Supplementary estimate of Rs.40,000/- was sent later on through e-mail, however, which was not considered by the surveyor.  On 02.09.2014, complainant requested OP No.1, in writing, to make payment of the repair bills but the complete amount was not paid by OP No.1.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs.99,225/- i.e. difference amount of Rs.3,99,065/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of due till realization. Further to pay Rs.2.00 lac on account of harassment and Rs.33000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, mis-joinder of necessary parties, and suppression of material facts by complainant.  On merits, it is submitted that on information qua accident of the car, answering OP appointed Sh. Daya Ram Gupta, surveyor who submitted his report dated 26.03.2014 whereby assessed loss to the car as Rs.2,90,622/-. However, another estimate of Rs.40,000/- was furnished by the repairer after considering the said loss, however, Rs.8752.87p was allowed towards this estimate which comes to a total Rs.2,99,840/- which was disbursed to complainant vide voucher dated 19.06.2015 and complainant accepted such amount as full and final settlement of his claim. As such, the OP denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 did not file any written statement to complaint rather his counsel adopted the WS of OP No.1, vide statement dated 07.07.2017.

4.                 In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-16 and closed the evidence on 16.07.2019.

5.                 On the other side, affidavits Annexure RW1/A & Annexure RW2/A of Sh. Rajender Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager and Sh. Daya Ram Surveyor, respectively and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R10 were produced on behalf of OP No.1 and closed the evidence on 07.09.2022.

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                 Admittedly, the complainant has received a sum of Rs.2,99,840/- from OP Insurance company. However, as per complainant, his claim was for Rs.3,99,065/-. Perusal of record reveals that the amount so released to complainant was on the recommendation of surveyor’s report (Annexures R-1 to R-4).   We have gone through the surveyor’s report. It is hard to understand as to on what basis, the surveyor has deducted the amount from the bill (Annexure C-8) which were issued by authorized service center of Toyota Company for a sum of Rs.3,99,065/-.  It is also astonishing that OP insurance company has allowed Rs.8752/- to complainant out of additional bill of Rs.40,000/-. Learned counsel for OP No.1 in support of his case has relied upon case laws delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar RP No.1175 of 2017 decided on 18.01.2021, Tarun Parekh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  First Appeal No.62 of 2015 decided on 24.05.2022 and M/s Himachal Pharmaceuticals Vs. Oriental Insurance Company decided on 18.01.2021. We have gone carefully through these citations.

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that though the assessment of loss by an approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of the claim but the surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. It is not so sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from and thus in our opinion is not conclusive. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP No.1 insurance company has denied the genuine claim of complainant and paid partly in an arbitrary and negligent manner for which he has to knock the doors of this Commission. In the above situation, complainant must have caused monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the communication of this order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.99,225/- (Rs. Ninety nine thousand two hundred twenty five) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) on account of harassment caused to the complainant.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 11.03.2024