Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/514/2013

karamveer S/o Ram Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramanjeet Singh Agent IFFCO Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chaudhary

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                     Complaint No.514 of 2013.

                                                     Date of institution: 15.07.2013.

                                                     Date of decision: 24.10.2017.

Karamveer, age-40 years, son of Sh. Ram Pal, resident of Village Kial, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                               …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Ramanjeet Singh (Pawan Kumar Mandhan) Agent, Iffco-Tokio, Code No.13000656, having office at Surya Car Bazar (Surya Motors) near Telephone Exchange Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO House, Ground Floor, 37 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019, through Branch Manager, Branch Code-13.

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Pankaj Chaudhary, Advocate, for complainant.   

                  Op No.1 already exparte.

                  Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

1.                The complainant-Karamveer has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he got insured his IKON Car bearing registration No.HR02V/9192 with the Op No.2 through Op No.1 vide policy No.78074440 dt. 08.08.2012 and paid the requisite premium.  It is alleged that the said car met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy and the said car was badly damaged in the said accident.  Information regarding accident was given to the Ops.  It is further alleged that the complainant got repaired the said car from Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., Workshop at Ambala-Jagadhri Road, Vill. Tepla, Ambala Cantt and he spent a sum of Rs.90,500/- on its repair.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.2 and submitted all the required documents but despite completing all the formalities, the Op No.2 deducted a sum of Rs.23,616/- including depreciation of Rs.21,816/-.  It is further alleged that the surveyor of Ops assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.70,810/- and after deduction of Rs.21,816/- as depreciation charges, the Op No.2 sent a cheque of Rs.48,600/- to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay further amount of Rs.42,000/- on account of cost of repair/damages alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 20.08.2014.  Op No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the claim of complainant was settled and a sum of Rs.48,600/- was paid as per the surveyor report and terms and conditions of insurance policy; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is stated that while processing the claim of complainant, the answering Op appointed Mr. A.K.Chhatwal, surveyor for the final survey of the vehicle in question.  The said surveyor submitted his report dt. 17.05.2012 and he assessed the loss of Rs.54,020/.  A sum of Rs.5420/- was deducted as per the clause “deductions” and the net amount of Rs.48,600/- was paid to the complainant.  The other pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sanket Gupta, Vice President as Annexure-R2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2/1 to Annexure-R2/3 and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.2.    

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             The main controversy between the parties is whether the complainant is entitled to the payment of amount as shown in bill Annexre-C4 incurred by him on account of repair of car in question?

                The version of complainant is that he has spent Rs.90,500/- on the repair of his car and in this regard, he drew the attention towards the bill, which is Annexure C-4 issued by Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd.  He further submitted that the report of surveyor is incorrect and is not based on true facts.  Further, the amount of Rs.21,816/- has wrongly been deducted out of the assessed amount of Rs.77,636/- without any basis. 

                On the other hand, the Op No.2 has placed reliance upon the report of surveyor, which is Annexure R2/2.  It has been contended that the surveyor has assessed the loss on the basis of actual facts and deduction of amount has rightly been made.  Further, there are no such allegations against the surveyor that he was biased against the complainant or that he was not fair in the matter or that he had any ill will or hatred/enmity against the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 place reliance upon the case law reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others Vs. East Indian Produce Ltd. & another, 2015(1) CPJ page 409 (NC), wherein it has been held that “Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value, unless it is proved otherwise-Impugned order set-aside.  Similarly, ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 also placed reliance upon the case law reported in 2017(2) CPJ page 546 (NC) titled as Babu Paul Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it has been held that “District Forum and State Commission rightly relied upon reports of surveyors-Complainant was entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,89,877/- only-No error in impugned order.”  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 also placed reliance upon the case law reported in 2017(1) CPJ page 187 (NC) titled as Bhagirathi Godawari Aqua Pure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

8.             We have perused the report of surveyor, which is Annexure-R2/2, whereby a total loss of Rs.77,636/- has been assessed by the surveyor and Rs.23,616/- has been deducted on account of depreciation, salvage and excess amount.  The details of parts and the percentage and amount of deduction have been fully described in the aforesaid report of the surveyor.  During arguments, the ld. Counsel for complainant could not falsify the contents of aforementioned report of the surveyor.  Even otherwise, there is no rebuttal on the part of complainant about the contents contained in the aforementioned report of the surveyor.  This Forum is aware that the report of surveyor is a reliable piece of document and the same cannot be brushed-aside merely on the oral allegations.  There is no occasion/justification for this Forum to discard the aforementioned report of the surveyor against which there is no allegation of any biasness etc.  So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.  The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 are fully applicable to the facts of instant case.    

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint of the complainant and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.      

 

Announced in open court:

Dated: 24.10.2017.

                                                           (SATPAL)

                                                           PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER