Haryana

StateCommission

A/246/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARDEEP KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      246 of 2016

Date of Institution:      21.03.2016

Date of Decision :       07.09.2016

 

1.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO 145-146, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh-160009 through its Regional Manager. 

2.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at First Floor, City Centre, Opposite I.B. College, G.T. Road, Panipat through its Branch Manager.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1& 2

Versus

 

1.      Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh. Sumer Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Khukhrana, District Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Eakansh Motors, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Haryana, through its Authorised Dealer.

3.      Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its General Manager/Authorised Representative.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.3 & 4

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Balvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2.

Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, are in appeal against the order dated December 17^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by complainant seeking compensation with respect to his insured car, which was burnt due to fire, was allowed directing the appellants-opposite parties as under:-

“…We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,75,000/- as insured amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for rendering deficient services, for mental agony and harassment etc and also pay the parking charges of Rs.1,03,099/- to the complainant. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties No.1 and 2 to the complainants.”    

2.                Car - Alto K-10, bearing registration No.HR-06X-6495, owned by Pardeep Kumar-complainant (respondent No.1 herein), was insured with the Insurance Company for the period June 25^th, 2012 to June 24^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-5. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.2,75,000/-. 

3.                On April 21^st, 2013 the car caught fire due to short circuit and burnt. The fire was extinguished by the fire tenders. The Insurance Company was informed. The complainant brought the car to Vijay Motors, an authorised service station of Maruti Suzuki India Limited-Opposite Party No.4 where the loss/damage to the car was assessed at Rs.5,04,975.62. The surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the net loss at Rs.2,59,000/-. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company did not pay the insured amount. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.                The Insurance Company-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written version stated that the car was burnt on 21.04.2013, however the complainant informed it (Insurance Company) on 11.05.2013 and thus there was delay of 20 days in giving intimation to the insurance company. It was further stated that the surveyor of the insurance company assessed the loss at Rs.2,59,000/-. However, the claim could not be settled due to non-cooperation of the complainant.  It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The opposite party No.3 was proceeded exparte. The opposite party No.4-Maruti Suzuki India Limited, in its written version denied any manufacturing defect in the car, as alleged by the complainant.  Opposite Party No.5 – Vijay Motors, in its separate reply pleaded that from the mechanical inspection of the car, it appeared that the car did not catch fire due to manufacturing defect, rather it may be due to accidental fire.

6.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint issuing direction to the appellants-opposite parties No.1 and 2, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

8.                Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the District Forum erroneously directed the appellants-Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,03,099/- as parking charges. It was further contended that the complainant cannot be granted compensation beyond the report of the surveyor, that is, Rs.2,59,000/-.

9.                The contention raised is tenable. The Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the consequential losses to the complainant; so the compensation of Rs.1,03,099/- on account of parking charges is liable to be set aside.

10.              So far as awarding Rs.2,75,000/-, that is, IDV of the vehicle, the surveyor in his report assessed the net loss at Rs.2,59,000/-. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, held that surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice.  

11.              In Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/ surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them”.

12.              In Rotex Automation Limited. Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, IV (2015) CPJ 560 (N.C.), Hon’ble National Commission held that Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value and cannot be ignored unless and until, it is proved otherwise.

13.              In the case in hand, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.2,75,000/-. The surveyor in his report (Annexure A-2) while concluding has given the details and after adjusting the agreed/negotiated salvage, worked out the net claim of Rs.2,59,000/-. No cogent and convincing evidence has been led by the complainant to disprove the report of the surveyor. So, the complainant cannot be awarded beyond the report of surveyor.

14.              In view of the above, the appellants-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.2,59,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its actual realization.  The complainant shall be entitled to retain the salvage. The complainant is not liable to pay any parking charges to the opposite party No.5, so the compensation of Rs.1,03,099/- on this count is set aside. Rest of the order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.              The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

16.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 07.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL