Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/260/2016

Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

N.M.Sharma

25 May 2023

ORDER

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.   260 of 2016

                                                DATE OF INSTITUTION: -             27.12.2016

                                                            DATE OF ORDER: -                         25.05.2023

 

Krishan Rathi son of Sh. Phool Singh Rathi, resident of Gali No.10, Shastri Nagar, Dinod Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani

 

            ……………Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Nehru Park, Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
2. Palm Motors (P) Ltd Jind Road, Rohtak, Pin-124001.

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

BEFORE:       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Sh. D.M. Yadav, Member

 

Present:-          Shri  N.M.Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.

            Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 1.

OP no. 2 exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of one FORD FIGO car bearing registration No. HR-19G-0202.  It is alleged that complainant got insured his car on 28.06.2015 from OP no.1 vide policy no.261202/31/2016/1698 w.e.f. 28.06.2015 to 27.06.2016 and paid premium of Rs. 7816/-. The vehicle met with an accident on 15.12.2015 near village Kalinga  mor on Bhiwani-Rohtak Road and intimation  in this regard was also given to the opposite parties. After receiving intimation, respondent no.1 deputed Sh. S.K.Yadav, Surveyor to carry out the survey. Surveyor asked the complainant to submit claim form which was duly submitted. The surveyor has also assured that the complainant will get the claim at earliest. The vehicle was got repaired from Palm Ford, Rohtak authorized dealer of Foard Motors Limited but insurance company refused to make the payment  of final bill amounting to Rs. 145688/- to respondent no.2.

It is alleged that the complainant many times requested to the OP no. 1 to pay the whole amount of repairing of vehicle.  Respondent no.1 assured to the complainant that the company will pay the claim after completion of due formalities but respondent no.1 clearly refused to accept his request.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint. It is therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed in favour of the complainant and against the respondent. Respondent be directed-

1. To make the payment of Rs. 1,45,688/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from date 31.12.2015 till payment.
2. To make the payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment.
3. To make the payment of Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.                     On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that complainant intimated the respondent company thatthe insured car has met with an accident on 15.12.2015 near Kalinga Mor, Khark. Shri Satish Kumar Yadav, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Rohtak was deputed to survey and assess the loss of car bearing registration no. HR19G-0202 who inspected the car in the workshop of NM/s Parlm Fort, Rohtak and surveyor submitted his final surveyor report on 28.12.2016 assessing the net loss payment  Rs. 55,468/- The competent authority after applying its judicial mind recommended to make the payable of Rs. 53,968/- according to the terms and conditions  of the insurance policy. The complainant has requested to deposit the documents as mentioned at serial no.11 and 13 in the letter dt. 10.04.2017 but the complainant did not cooperate the answering respondent by not submitting the requisite documents within 15days failing which the file will be closed treated as ‘No Claim’.Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPno. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                     Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 through registered post but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, therefore, the opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.03.2017 of this Commission.

4.                     To prove its complaint, counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and document Annexure C1 to Annexure C8 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt. 25.06.2020.

5.                     Counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt.30.08.2022

6.                     We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the car in question was damaged in road accident and it was taken by the complainant to OP no. 2 for necessary repairs, while the OP no. 2 has charged Rs. 1,45,688/- for the repairs. The OP no. 1/insurance company assessed the loss at Rs. 55,468/- , hence the OP no. 1 is liable to pay the entire amount of repairs to OP no. 2. 

8.                     Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of its reply.  He submitted that after the receipt of information about the accident the surveyor and loss Assessor in its final survey report assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 55,468/- vide surveyor report Annexure R-3.  The complainant is liable to pay the depreciation for the motor parts as per the terms and conditions of the policy

9.                     In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has produced the certificate of insurance Annexure C-2 but no term and condition of the policy is annexed to this document.  The complainant has also produced the Registration Certificate of vehicle as Annexure C-1, Rojnamacha Annexure C3, Pre invoicing  Annexure C4, Legal Notice Annexure C5, Registry Slip Annexure C6, No Claim letter Annexure C7, Letter of Insurance Company dt. 10.04.2017 Annexure C8.  No other document has been produced by the complainant.  The OP no. 1 has produced Surveyor and loss Assessor report Annexure R3dated 02.01.2016 alongwith annexures. 

10.                   We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The respondent insurance company placed on record survey report issued by Sh. S.K.Yadav Surveyor as Ex.R3. As per this report, the surveyor assessed an amount of Rs. 55468/- as repair cost of vehicle but the same is very less from the estimated cost. AS per the complainant he spent an amount of Rs. 1,45,688/- on the repair of the vehicle. We have minutely perused the survey report. As per our opinion, the surveyor has not properly assessed the loss in the vehicle in question. For example Rs. 33,275/- has been estimated on the painting of the damaged parts but the surveyor has allowed only a sum of Rs. 9375/-. Similarly the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.12500/- on the Hose compressor/A.C. pipe but the surveyor has allowed only a sum of Rs.1157/- against the repair. Complainant  has spent Rs.6000/- on one more part Control Road, Fan/Fan Shroud but the surveyor has allowed only Rs. 1010/- against the repair. There are so many differences in the assessment made by surveyor and the actual expenditure incurred by the complainant. As per our opinion the complainant is entitled for some more amount because the surveyor has not properly assessed the loss. As such complainant is entitled for the amount spent by him on the repair (Rs.145688/-) after deducting the 20% value of the alleged parts i.e. Rs. 1,16,550/-

11.               In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we hereby allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.1 to pay the amount of Rs. 1,16,550/- (One Lakh Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty  Only) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 27.12.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. 

12.                   Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 25.05.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)                  (Saroj Bala Bohra)         

   Member.                       Presiding Member,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.