Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1054/2012

Sanjeev Bhatia S/o Ram Lal Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 1054 of 2012

                                                                                         Date of institution: 01.10.2012.

                                                                                         Date of decision:08.12.2016.

1. Sanjeev Bhatia, 2. Pawan Kumar both sons of late Sh. Ram Lal Bhatia, both resident of 657, Chotti Line, Near Panchayati Gurdwara, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            …Complainants.

                                                   Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited having its Branch Office at Opposite Madhu Hotel, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar-135001-Haryana    through its Manager.                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                            …Respondent.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainants.    

               Sh. V.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents.            

             

ORDER

 

1.                    Complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainants, are that the complainants are joint owner of the commercial vehicle TATA bearing registration No. HR-38F-0153 which was insured with the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP Insurance Company) vide cover note No. 246053 dated 13.05.2011 valid from 29.05.2011 to 28.05.2012. In the first week of February, 2012, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident, accordingly, the complainants lodged their claim with the OPs Insurance Company and submitted the estimate of loss issued by M/s Multani Motor Garage amounting to Rs. 1,03,300/- and also of M/s Balbir Singh Body Makers amounting to Rs. 27500/-. However, the complainants have incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 50,773/- in all on the repair of the vehicle in question including the fee of Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Toeing charges of Rs. 2500/-. The complainant forwarded all the bills of repair alongwith necessary proofs thereof to the OP Insurance Company and requested to reimburse the total amount. However, after waiting for a considerable time the complainant received only Rs. 18,299/- in their bank account on 20.07.2012 which was paid by the Op Insurance Company through RTGS. Upon this, the complainants were shocked and requested to the Op Insurance Company and made so many representations to the OP Insurance Company but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to pay total bill of loss of Rs. 50,773/- after deducting the amount so already paid and also to pay compensating as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as there is no deficiency in service; Surveyor Sh. Vikas Kohli assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 26,300/- and submitted his report on 16.04.2012 (Annexure R-1) and after deducting the amount of Rs. 7500/- on account of additional excess clause as the model of the truck was year 2000, remaining amount of Rs. 18,299/- has already been transferred to the account of complainant through RTGS on 13.07.2012 (Annexure R-3) and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as the OP Insurance Company had already paid the assessed amount to the complainant.

4.                     Complainants failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order dated 22.03.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint complainants tendered short affidavit of Sanjeev Bhatia and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance Cover note as Annexure-A, Photo copy of receipts as Annexure-B and C, Photo copy of fee of surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure-D, Photo copies of receipts, bills and estimate as Annexure E to K, Photo copy of Particulars of account/RTGS as Annexure-L in support of their case.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmej Singh, Deputy Manager, OIC as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Vikas Kohli, Surveyor as Annexure RW/B and documents such as Photo copy of Surveyor report as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Electronic Transfer of Rs. 18,299/- in the account of complainants as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of discharge voucher as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of insurance cover note as Annexure R-5 Photo copy of report of Er. Jagdeep Singh Bhayana Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38F-0153 was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide policy cover note No. 246053 valid from 29.05.2011 to 28.05.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-. It is also not disputed that vehicle in question met with an accident in the first week of February, 2012 and a claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs. 18,299/- was transferred in the account of complainant through RTGS by the Oriental Insurance Company on 13.07.2012 which is duly evident from the letter dated 13.07.2012 (Annexure R-3).

8.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that the complainant has spent Rs. 50,773/- but the OP Insurance Company has paid only Rs. 18,299/- which is totally wrong and illegal.

9.                     Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the Op Insurance Company argued at length that the claim of the complainant had already been settled and an amount of Rs. 18,299/- has been transferred in their account on 13.07.2012 and draw our attention towards the letter dated 13.07.2012 (Annexure R-3). Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company further draw our attention towards the Surveyor report dated 16.04.2012 (Annexure R-1) and argued that the surveyor and loss assessor assessed the loss of Rs. 26,350/- and after deducting the salvage of Rs. 200/- and additional excess clause of Rs. 7,500/- remaining amount of Rs. 18,299/- has been rightly paid to the complainants. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Insurance Company.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op Insurance Company as it is admitted case of both the parties that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 05.02.2012 and Surveyor and Loss Assessor inspected the vehicle on 09.02.2012 and submitted his report (Annexure R-1) on 16.04.2012 but the Op Insurance Company paid the amount of Rs. 18,299/- on 13.07.2012 i.e. after a more than 3 months from the date of submission of report and near about 5 months from the date of accident which is totally illegal as it is settle law that claim should be settled within a period of 2-3 months but the OP Insurance Company failed to do so which constitute the deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company. Furthermore, we have perused the spot survey report of Er. Jagdeep Singh Bhayana dated 25.03.2012 (Annexure R-6) and in this report under the head 13 details of damages has been disclosed. As per damages mentioned in this report, it is clearly evident that vehicle in question was badly damaged. In this report at serial No.13 (r) front bumper badly damaged under impact has been mentioned by the spot surveyor whereas in the surveyor report of M/s Vikas Kohli Annexure R-1, this item has been declined by the surveyor and loss assessor Mr. Vikas Kohli which is mentioned as serial No. 3. In the report of spot surveyor left tyres (Front & Rear), Left and front shocker at serial No. I & J were also shown as damaged but no amount on this account has been allowed by the surveyor. Even in the surveyor report of Sh. Vikas Kohli some amount has been deducted more than 50% on metallic parts as at serial No. 4 & 5 an amount of Rs. 900/- on account of tie rod kit and Rs. 900/- on account of draglink kit were claimed by the complainant but Rs. 300/- and Rs. 350/- has been allowed by the surveyor. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 7500/- on account of additional excess clause has also been deducted by the OP Insurance Company on the ground that vehicle in question was of the model year 2000 whereas the claim of the complainant had already been assessed on account of 50% on the metal parts as well as rubber and plastic parts, so, the OP Insurance Company cannot deduct the amount on two accounts.

11                    The arguments advanced by the counsel for the OP Insurance Company that the OP Insurance Company had already settled the claim of the complainant and paid an amount of Rs. 18,299/- and the complainant has accepted the same vide discharge voucher Annexure R-4 without any protest is not tenable as the amount of the complainant was transferred by the OPs Insurance Company through RTJS in the account of the complainant directly without getting approval from the complainant. The discharge voucher Annexure R-4 which has been placed on file by the OP Insurance Company bears no date on which it was obtained from the complainant, it seems that this voucher has been got signed by the surveyor on printed papers during the investigation because neither the name of complainant nor the father name has been mentioned in this discharge voucher. Even the present complaint has also been filed within a short span of time after transferring the amount in their account.

12.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainants have been assessed on lower side by the Surveyor & Loss Assessor due to the reasons best known to him and further the OP Insurance Company has also failed to pay the amount in time to the complainants. As such, the complainants are entitled to get some relief to avoid further litigation.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainants and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay a lump sum of Rs. 12,000/- in addition alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization to the complainant and further to pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 08.12.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

            (S.C.SHARMA )                                            D.C.D.R.F, YAMUNA NAGAR

             MEMBER                                                      AT JAGADHRI.