Punjab

Sangrur

CC/705/2020

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K.Hareri

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 705

 Instituted on:   21.12.2020

                                                                        Decided on:     07.10.2024

 

Harpal Singh son of Jagar Singh, resident of Village Andheri, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             Oriental Insurance Company, Nabha Gate, Near Prem Sabha School, Opposite Aggarwal Book Depot, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             Sandeep Verma, Surveyor of Oriental Insurance Company, Nabha Gate, Near Prem Sabha School, Opposite Aggarwal Book Depot, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur. (Complaint against OP number 2 was withdrawn on 23.12.2022).

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.K.Hareri, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill,                  :President

Sarita Garg,                                     :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh,                            :Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

 

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs on the ground that he is the owner of Breeza car bearing registration number PB-13-AZ-3784 and the said car was insured with the OP number 1 vide policy number 215700/31/2020/192327 for the period from 25.11.2019 to 24.11.2020. Further case of complainant is that on 06.06.2020 the above said car was hit with pithole and the music system of the car was totally damaged, as such the intimation of loss was given to the OP number 1 and the OP number 1 appointed the surveyor. It is further averred that the music system of the car in question suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests to the OP, the OP number 1 did not pass the claim of the music system of the car.  Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 22.6.2020 upon the OPs, but the OPs did not send any reply thereto.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1,  preliminary and legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, that the claim of the complainant for damage to music system is not tenable because as per the report of surveyor Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma dated 15.6.2020 the audio and navigation system of the car was intact. Further in his observation, he has given remarks that the hair crack line was found on stereo system which is not justified with its position and damage by head. As the damage to the audio and navigation system did not corroborate with the accident, therefore, it was not allowed by the surveyor as the music system was intact and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.  On merits, it has been admitted that the car in question was insured with the OP. However, it is denied that the car in question suffered loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. It is further averred that the other claim of the complainant, arising from the said incident, has been paid by the OP to the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,966/-. It is further averred that since no other amount is payable to the complainant, as such any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.             The complainant had also filed the complaint against Shri Sandeep Verma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and was arrayed as OP number 2, but complaint against Shri Sandeep Verma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, OP Number 2 was withdrawn vide statement dated 23.12.2022 of the learned counsel for the complainant, Shri S.K. Hareri, Advocate.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/4 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the complainant and OP number 1 that the car in question bearing registration number PB-13-AZ-3784 was insured with the OP number 1. It is also not in dispute that the car in question suffered accident on 06.06.2020 and the OP number 1 appointed Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss. The complainant has sought relief for the loss to the music system and has claimed the amount to the tune of Rs.70,000/- and has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not paying the claim amount to the complainant and as such has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the OP number 1 has already settled the claim and has paid an amount of Rs.15,966/- to the complainant.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OP number 1 that since no other amount was payable to the complainant, as such any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied and the music system was intact as per the report of the surveyor. Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that as per the survey report of Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma dated 15.6.2020, Ex.OP1/4 the hair crack line was found on stereo system which is not justify its position and damage by head. As such, no claim is payable against the loss of stereo system i.e. Audio and Navigation as the same was found to be intact. Further the complainant has not produced iota of evidence to show that how much loss to the stereo system was incurred during the accident.  No expert opinion/evidence was produced to corroborate the case of the complainant. However, as per the version of the OP number 1 in the written reply as well as in the affidavit of Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Ex.OP1/2 and Motor Final Survey report (Cashless) Ex.OP1/4, the claim has already been settled and the amount of Rs.15,966/- has already been paid to the complainant, but this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant either in the complaint or in the affidavit nor this fact has been denied/disclosed by the complainant by filing rejoinder to the reply thereto. Moreover, in affidavit of Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, it is specifically mentioned that said music system was intact and there was no damage to said music system.  We further find that the averments in the written reply has also been supported by the affidavit Ex.OP1/1 of Shri Mukesh Malhotra, Sr. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Patiala.  Under the circumstances of the case, we find that the OP number 1 has already settled and paid the claim amount to the complainant as per the Motor Final Survey Report of Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Ex.OP1/4 and no other amount is found to be payable to the complainant.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no case made out for any deficiency in service against the OP number 1 and as such the complaint is dismissed being without merits. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

 

                October 7, 2024.

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member               Member                   President