Haryana

Sonipat

CC/414/2015

Ganpati Marketing - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jitender Singh

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.414 of 2015

                                Instituted on:05.11.2015

                                Date of order:05.07.2016

 

M/s Ganpati Marketing, Bloci-C/305/B, Laxmi Complex, Jamal rod, Patna through its partners Smt. Renu Sara wife of Ram Gopal Sara and Anju Sara wife of Santosh Sara, both r/o TDI Kundli, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 204-R, Ist Floor, Model Town, Atlas rod, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.         

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Jitender Singh Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. RP Antil Adv. for respondent. 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L.GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of the car bearing no.BR-01AV/1247 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 13.5.2014 to 12.5.2015 for Rs.2,10,000/-.  Unfortunately the said vehicle has met with an accident on 17.7.2014 and was badly damaged.  FIR no.205 dated 18.7.2014 was lodged with PS Kundli, distt. Sonepat. Intimation regarding the alleged accident was given to the respondent.  The total loss was assed for Rs.397430.71 paise, but the value, surveyor & loss assessor has assessed the total loss for Rs.74920/- out of Rs.397430/- and in this way, the complainant got his car repaired from his own pocket.  The complainant has requested the respondent to settle the claim, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  So, the complainant has come to this Forum  and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the car in question was insured with the respondent for the period 13.5.2014 to 12.5.2015.  The respondent has denied the fact that after the accident, the complainant lodged the claim with the respondent or the total loss of the car was assessed for Rs.397430/-. However, after receipt of the information regarding the accident, the respondent has deputed Engineer Ravi Kant, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss who visited the workshop Mega Motors, Sonepat and has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74920/- and also assessed the salvage value to the tune of Rs.3000/-.  The claim of the complainant could not be settled as the complainant has not fulfilled the required formalities for the settlement of his claim.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant’s car bearing no.BR-01AV/1247 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 13.5.2014 to 12.5.2015 has met with an accident on 17.7.2014 and was badly damaged.  FIR no.205 dated 187.2014 was lodged with PS Kundli, distt. Sonepat. Intimation regarding the alleged accident was given to the respondent.  The total loss was assed for Rs.397430.71 paise, but the value, surveyor & loss assessor has assessed the total loss for Rs.74920/- out of Rs.397430/- and in this way, the complainant got his car repaired from his own pocket.  The complainant has requested the respondent to settle the claim, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the car in question was insured with the respondent for the period 13.5.2014 to 12.5.2015.  The respondent has denied the fact that after the accident, the complainant lodged the claim with the respondent or the total loss of the car was assessed for Rs.397430/-. However, after receipt of the information regarding the accident, the respondent has deputed Engineer Ravi Kant, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss who visited the workshop Mega Motors, Sonepat and has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74920/- and also assessed the salvage value to the tune of Rs.3000/-.  The claim of the complainant could not be settled as the complainant has not fulfilled the required formalities for the settlement of his claim.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation

          In the present case, the respondent has deputed one surveyor namely Ravi Kant Arya for assessing the loss in the vehicle in question of the complainant. As per the said surveyor report, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.74920/-.  As per the written statement and affidavit of the respondent, the claim of the complainant could not be settled as the complainant has not fulfilled the required formalities of the respondent.  The respondent officials have requested the complainant in this regard so many times, but in vain.

          The IDV of the complainant’s vehicle is Rs.2,10,000/- and it was insured for the period 13.05.2014 to 12.05.2015.  As per the complainant, the total loss in the vehicle was assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.397430/-.  But infact this amount was not the assessed amount and it was merely an estimate.  The complainant has claimed the total IDV of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/-, Rs.one lac on account of harassment, humiliation, mental pain and agony, Rs.10,000/- on account of costs and Rs.11000/- as counsel fee.

          The respondent has placed on record the surveyor report as Ex.R1 and policy Ex.R2.  It is clear from the surveyor report and policy that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.74920/- and IDV of the vehicle as per the policy is Rs.2,10,000/-.  As per the complainant, he got repaired his vehicle from his own pocket.  But in support of this claim, he has not placed on record any photograph, bill or any other document which may go to prove that the complainant has spent the amount more-than Rs.74920/- on the repair of his vehicle.  Moreover, the complainant himself has placed on record the document i.e. copy of letter written by the surveyor Ravi Kant Arya to the Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., the relevant portion of this letter is reproduced below:-

          “I inspected the repaired car thoroughly and found in good running and road worthy conditions and repair work has been well carried out satisfactorily.  I noted/verified each and every parts allowed as per pre-invoice submitted with the parts replaced and found all the parts replaced.  I arranged a few phototgraphs of repaired car alongwith original salvage which are enclosed with the report. The salvage was mutilated in my presence and photographs arranged are enclosed”.

          After considering this document placed on record by the complainant himself, we have came to the conclusion that the surveyor has rightly assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74920/- and the complainant except the said amount, is not entitled for any other amount.  However, it is not clear from the material available on the case file that whether the amount of Rs.74920/- has been paid by the respondent to the complainant or not?  The insurance company has not mentioned any legal and genuine ground why they have not paid the assessed amount of Rs.74920/- to the complainant.  In the written statement and affidavit, the detail regarding non-fulfillment of the formalities by the complainant has also not been mentioned.  Accordingly, it is directed to the respondent that if the amount of Rs.74920/- has not been paid to the complainant till today, in that situation, the respondent is directed to make the payment of Rs.74920/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (JL Gupta)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 05.07.2016