Punjab

Sangrur

CC/213/2019

Sukhpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ramandeep

23 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR, PUNJAB.

          Complaint Case No           : CC/213/2019

                                               Date of Institution            : 13.05.2019

          Date of Decision               : 23.05.2024

 

Sukhpal Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of House No. 82, Street No. 4, Shivam Colony, Sangrur.    

                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                              Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                                                         ...Opposite Party.

Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present:       Sh. Rishav Sardana counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Bhushan Garg counsel for opposite party.

Quorum.-

      1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill              : President

2. Smt. Sarita Garg                             : Member
3. Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh                      : Member    

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant namely Sukhpal Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act against Oriental Insurance Company Limited (in short the opposite party).

2.                The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant hired insurance services from opposite party for his car Ford Ikon bearing registration No. PB-13W-6162 for the period of 9.4.2018 to 8.4.2019 by paying Rs. 4,939/- and the policy No. 233502/31/2019/43 was cashless policy and the opposite party had not supplied the separate terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. It is further alleged that the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.12.2018 Near California Marriage Palace, Sangrur-Sunam Road, Sangrur and in this regard FIR No. 144 dated 29.12.2018 was got registered in P.S. Sadar, Sangrur and the vehicle of the complainant was got damaged in alleged accident. The complainant gave intimation to the opposite party regarding the alleged accident and the opposite party deputed the surveyor to inspect and asses the loss of the vehicle and as per the direction of the surveyor complainant parked the car with Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sarhind Road, Patiala for repair. The said workshop is empanelled workshop of opposite party. The Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sarhind Road, Patiala prepared the estimate bill and same was handed over to surveyor and copy of the same was also sent to the opposite party. It is further alleged that the complainant got repaired the said vehicle from Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sarhind Road, Patiala, who prepared the final bills dated 14.2.2019 Rs. 59,378/- & 15.2.2019 Rs. 36,816/- i.e. total amounting Rs. 96,194/-. The opposite party directly paid Rs. 55,174/- to the Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sarhind Road, Patiala and rest amount i.e. Rs. 41,020/- was paid by the complainant on account of repair of alleged damaged vehicle. The complainant supplied the documents time to time to the opposite party and to the surveyor as demanded by them and the complainant requested number of times to the opposite party to pay the rest insurance claim amount but all in vain. The official of opposite party told to the complainant that claim has already been settled but the complainant neither received any intimation nor any claim amount and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1. The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 41,020/- on account of damage of alleged insured vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
2. To pay Rs. 35,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written reply by taking preliminary & legal objections on the ground that the present complaint filed by the complainant is gross abuse of process of law and is absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The complainant has suppressed material facts and has not approached with clean hands etc. On merits, it is denied that opposite party had not supplied the separate terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. The damage to the insured car was taken place after 7/8 months from the date of insurance, therefore the complainant sufficient time to demand the terms and conditions of the policy from the opposite party. It is further alleged that the policy is subject to conditions, clauses, warranties, exclusions, IMTs and OIC endorsement mentioned therein which are available on companies website www.orientalinsurance.org.in. However, it is correct that complainant got insured his Ford Ikon car having registration No. PB-13W-6162 having model 2010 from opposite party and obtained car package policy No. 233502/31/2019/43 which was valid from 9.4.2018 to 8.4.2019 with IDV 1,80,000/-. The same was insured subject to terms and conditions of the policy and opposite party issued policy alongwith terms and conditions to the insured. It is submitted that opposite party immediately after receiving information of loss, appointed independent and IRDA approved surveyor Mandeep Kataria of Patiala for assessment of loss to the insured car. However, it is denied that as per the direction of the surveyor, complainant parked the car with Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sarhind Road, Patiala for repair. It is submitted that insurance policy issued is subject to conditions, clauses, warranties, exclusions, IMTs and OIC endorsement mentioned therein. As per terms and condition of the policy, in case any claim arises under the policy, depreciation on new metal and rubber parts as per the age of the vehicle is required to be deducted as per the percentage mention in the said terms and condition. In this case surveyor has assessed the loss as per terms and conditions of the policy and as per his report dated 23.2.2019 the claim of Rs. 55,174/- is payable to the insured and the said claim has been paid by the opposite party to the insured and no amount is due towards the opposite party under this claim, so question of request of the complainant to the opposite party to pay the rest claim does not arise at all, moreover the same is not payable. All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of bills Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5, copy of receipt Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

5.                To rebut the case the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.O.P/1 self attested affidavit, Ex.O.P1/2 copy of policy alongwith terms and conditions (1to 9 pages), Ex.O.P/3 self attested affidavit, Ex.O.P/4 copy of surveyror report alongwith photos (1 to 7 pages), Ex.O.P/5 copy of FIR and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

7.                It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his Ford Ikon car having registration No. PB-13W-6162 having model 2010 from opposite party and obtained car package policy vide policy No. 233502/31/2019/43 which was valid from 9.4.2018 to 8.4.2019 (as per Ex.C-2 & Ex.O.P/2). It is also admitted case of the complainant that the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.12.2018 Near California Marriage Palace, Sangrur-Sunam Road, Sangrur and in this regard FIR No. 144 dated 29.12.2018 was got registered in P.S. Sadar, Sangrur and the vehicle of the complainant was got damaged in alleged accident (as per Ex.C-3 & Ex.O.P/5). It is also admitted case on the file that the opposite party has paid the claim amount of Rs. 55,174/- to the Auto Ways #43, Green Park Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala and this fact is proved from copy of receipt Ex.C-6 placed on record by the complainant vide which it is mentioned that we are receiving payment of Rs. 55,174/- against Car No. PB13W-6162 Ford Ikon by NEFT from Oriental Insurance Company against claim.

8.                The allegation of the complainant is that as per the direction of the surveyor complainant parked the car with Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala for repair and the Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala prepared the estimate bill and same was handed over to surveyor and copy of the same was also sent to the opposite party and the complainant got repaired the said vehicle from Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala, who prepared the final bills dated 14.2.2019 Rs. 59,378/- & 15.2.2019 Rs. 36,816/- i.e. total amounting Rs. 96,194/- but the opposite party directly paid Rs. 55,174/- to the Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala and rest amount i.e. Rs. 41,020/- was paid by the complainant on account of repair of alleged damaged vehicle and the complainant requested number of times to the opposite party to pay the rest insurance claim amount but all in vain. However, the complainant has failed to prove the fact that the above said bills were issued by the authorized dealer/service centre of the Ford Company or the above said Auto Ways, Green Park Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala is the authorized dealer/service center of the Ford Company. In order to rebut the allegation of the complainant the opposite party has placed on record Final Motor Survey Report of Mandeep Kataria Surveyor & Loss Assessor/Investigator Ex.OP/4 vide which the said surveyor has given details of Estimate loss and Assessed loss and assessed the net amount of Rs. 55,174/- after describing details of the cost of parts, cost of labour, less policy clause, less scrap value and add towing charges (maximum).  Further, the said surveyor also placed on record the photos of damaged car which shows the damage occurred to the vehicle in question. Moreover, to support his report the said surveyor has filed his affidavit Ex.O.P/3. In the affidavit he deposed that deponent has inspected the said vehicle and considering damages suffered in the said accident, deponent assessed the loss of Rs. 55,174/- as per terms and conditions of the policy vide which the said car insured by the insurance company and the deponent prepared the assessment of loss report dated 23.2.2019 which is duly signed & stamped by the deponent and submitted the same to the company. The deponent has deducted required depreciation as per the terms and conditions of the policy and deducted on account of salvage value and policy clauses. As per terms and conditions of the policy, depreciation on new metal and rubber parts as per the age of the vehicle is required to be deducted as per the percentage mention in the said terms and conditions and the deponent has disallowed the old damages to the said car which is not payable in this claim and the deponent has also disallowed the items which were not damaged and has also allowed repair of some damaged parts which were found repairable. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to place on record any expert report/opinion of any expert/technician in order to rebut/counter the report of surveyor. So, the above said allegation of the complainant is not tenable.  

9.                Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2017(3) C.P.R. 551 in case titled Sidhnath Choubey Vs Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that on perusal of surveyor’s report, it is clear that the Surveyor has calculated the claim on the basis of damaged parts of the vehicle and also considering the depreciation and policy excess clauses. Therefore, the report of Surveyor cannot be faulted. Hence, revision petition dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh 2006(2) C.P.C. 133: 2006(49) R.C.R. (Civil) 525 in case titled New India Assurance Co. Vs N.S. Sidhu vide which the Hon’ble State Commission held that on quite a few items which are to be replaced the value that is reimbursable by the Insurance Company to the insured is the depreciated value like those of Rubber Parts, Glass etc. where different depreciation is provided in the Insurance Policy. There is nothing on the record on behalf of the complainant that there was anything wrong in the Surveyor’s Report. If the Surveyor report is not challenged by way of some evidence or otherwise, the same has to be accepted. The District Forum has observed in its order that “it is well settled law that when the accidental vehicle is got repaired from any authorized dealer, then the insurance company is liable for its full amount”. We do not find that there is any settled law rather the law is that the insured would get for the replacement of the parts etc. the value as depreciated according to the schedule in the Insurance Policy. Appeal allowed. Further, The Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Shyam Kumar Parashar report in IV(2017) CPJ-37B held that respondent has not filed any cogent evidence for discarding report of Surveyor. Merely filing of invoices and bills, it cannot be held that respondent incurred expenditure of Rs. 3,73,960/- on repairing vehicle. Surveyor's report is a reliable document. Respondent is entitled for the amount assessed by surveyor. Moreover, it is settled law that where the complainant has failed to prove the genuineness/authenticity of the bills/invoices as claimed by the complainant, so in that circumstances the surveyor report is liable to give weightage.

10.               In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation.

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

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

                    ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

                                       23^rd Day of May, 2024

 

                                                                                                                  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                                                                                                                               President

                                                

                                                                                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                                                                                              Member

 

                                                                                                                     (Kanwaljeet Singh)

                                                                                                                             Member