Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 306
Instituted on : 10.07.2018
Decided on : 27.02.2023.
Jagbir Suhag s/o Sh. Dilbag Singh R/o Village Bisan, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental House P.B.No.7037, A-Asaf Ali Road, Delhi-110002.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.N.P.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Dr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he insured his motorcycle Royal Enfield Bullet bearing No.hr-77A-4470 from the opposite party vide policy No.411700/31/2017/ABRE/2S143 dated 15.02.2017 for the period 15.02.2017 to 14.02.2018. The above said motorcycle was met with an accident and the same was duly informed to the opposite party. On the assurance of opposite party, the complainant after taking the estimate, got repaired the above said motorcycle from Badhwar & Co. and spent an amount of Rs.19937/-. Complainant sent the copy of service invoice alongwith all requisite documents to the opposite party and opposite party assured to pay the same to the complainant as early as possible. But despite repeated requests and sorting out the written queries time to time, no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.19937/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that after receiving the information regarding the alleged accident the answering respondent took immediate action and survey was conducted by Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma Surveyor & loss Assessor, who after conducting survey submitted his survey report dated 22.05.2017. After receiving the survey report, the answering respondent immediately processed the claim file and informed the insured that his claim has been approved by the competent authority for an amount of Rs.7143/- and asked him to submit the discharge voucher for completion of post approval formalities. But the insured did not submit the discharge voucher despite letters dated 19.06.2017, 03.08.2017 & 18.09.2017 and did not complete the approval formalities. Finally, the answering respondent left with no option except to close the claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.09.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.01.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present complaint, insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. As per the complainant, he has spent an amount of Rs.19937/- on the repair of vehicle but the surveyor has only assessed an amount of Rs.7643.06/-. As per the opposite party, they have sent letters Ex.R3 to Ex.R6 for demanding the discharge vouchers but the complainant did not reply the same. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the complainant was not satisfied with the claim assessed by the surveyor, so he did not send the discharge voucher to the opposite party. We have minutely perused the remarks & observations made in the survey report Ex.R2, as per which surveyor has submitted that : “I visited the workshop of M/s Badhwar & Company Rohtak and checked the vehicle minutely. The damages beheld were fresh in nature correlating with the cause of accident with occurrence seems to be a possibility. I took necessary photographs showing the extent of damages and enclosed the same. I inspected the vehicle very minutely and found Front “Mudguard, Front Shockers(Forks) Handle T(steering Stom) damaged. Insured demanded in estimate Frame(Chassis) of the vehicle, Front Spindle and Handle Bar but these parts were not damaged”. But to prove the same, opposite party or the surveyor has not placed on record any photographs to prove that these parts were not damaged, for the reasons best known to them. Hence the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed by the complainant through bill. As per bill/service invoice Ex.C6, complainant has spent an amount of Rs.19937/- and the opposite party is liable to pay the alleged amount to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.19937/-(Rupees nineteen thousand nine hundred and thirty seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.10.07.2018 till its realsiation and shall also pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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 court:
27.02.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
