Chandigarh

StateCommission

FA/140/2010

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Randhir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Paul. S. Saini

03 Nov 2010

ORDER


The State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionUnion Territory,Chandigarh ,Plot No 5-B, Sector No 19B,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160 019
FIRST APPEAL NO. 140 of 2010
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.having its Regional Office at SCO 332-334, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its Duly Constituted Attorney Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Assistant Manager ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Randhir Singh s/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, resident of House No. 119, Sector 14, Village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh2. M/s Magma Finance Corporation LimitedSCO 75, Top Floor, Phaxe IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 03 Nov 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

            JUDGMENT
                                                             3.11.2010
 
Justice Pritam Pal, President
 
1.         The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum- I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1162 of 2009 filed by complainant Randhir Singh was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and National Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.4,34,106/- to the complainant within thirty days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which it was made liable to pay penal interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 17.8.2009 till actual realization. 
2.           The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum.
3.                In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus ;
                 The complainant got his new vehicle (truck)  bearing registration No. No.PB-65-F-5077 comprehensively insured from OP insurance company through OP-2 for the period from 17.8.2007 to 16.8.2008. On 2.7.2008 the said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged near Sahiba Ganj Masjid, District Sultanpur (UP) regarding which FIR No.559 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the offending truck. In the second week of July 2008, the claim was lodged with OP insurance company seeking indemnification of the loss sustained by the complainant due to accident of the truck and submitted  necessary documents. After due formalities, the complainant  got his truck repaired from the authorized workshop i.e. M/s Pasco Motors, Chandigarh and spent a sum of Rs.3,26,106/-. He further got the driver cabin of the truck repaired from M/s New Matharu Body Makers, Manimajra, Chandigarh, as the same was not done by M/s Pasco Motors, and spent a sum of Rs.88,000/-. He  had also spent a sum of Rs.40,000/- for transport of the damaged vehicle.  It was alleged that the complainant visited the surveyor as well as office of OP-2  M/s Magma Finance Corporation Limited with whom Insurance company was having tie up arrangement for the release of compensation amount but there was no response and he had to pay the entire amount to the repairers from his own pocket. Thereafter, complainant received memo dated 26.3.2009 from OP-1 whereby he was asked to submit verified copy of challan, bills and cash memos for repair and replacement of parts/vehicle and re-inspection report of cabin which were sent by him through his reply-cum-legal notice dated 29.4.2009, except the inspection and re-inspection report which were with the surveyor of OP-1. However,   he again received a memo dated 23.6.2009 requiring him  to send the documents again.  He sent reply-cum- legal notice dated 3.7.2009 and resubmitted the necessary documents, but still nothing was done. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 
4.          OP insurance company contested the complaint and filed reply before the District Forum inter-alia stating therein that the claim was lodged with OP-2 on 12.1.2009 and it was observed that documents were not complete for processing and disposing of the claim regarding which the matter was taken up with the financer (OP-2) and the complainant was also informed vide letters dated 26.3.2009 and 23.6.2009.  The claim was surveyed by Sh.R.S. Arora, surveyor and loss assessor who vide his report dated 8.11.2008 observed that the insured of his own had dismantled the cabin of the vehicle in addition to cutting of the dash board cowl accessory left side and the same was not damaged in the accident. The damage caused to the engine parts   were consequential damages occurred while transporting the vehicle. It was pleaded that the claim was assessed on non-standard basis and total net loss was assessed for Rs.1,18,077/-. It was denied that the complainant had fulfilled the required formalities or that he was entitled to payment of Rs.4,54,106/-.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 
5.            However, OP No.2 filed  short written reply  stating therein that it  was only a financer and the present dispute  related to non granting of the insurance claim by OP-1 as per policy of insurance taken by the complainant from them and thus it had no role to play.  After filing reply none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 before the District Forum and suffered ex parte proceedings.
6 .       The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order , opposite party as well as complainant have come up in their respective   appeals.  
7.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties   and gone through the file carefully. The main point   of arguments raised on behalf of the National Insurance Company is that upon receipt of intimation of accident, Engineer S.N.Singh, Surveyor and loss assessor was deputed for conducting the spot survey who submitted his report dated 8.7.2008. Thereafter, final survey was got conducted by Sh.R.S.Arora, surveyor who submitted his report dated 8.11.2008 assessing the loss at Rs.1,60,585/-. The said surveyor specifically mentioned in his report that the insured himself had dismantled the cabin of the vehicle in addition to dismantling of the vehicle i.e. cutting the dashboard/cowl assembly left side to facilitate the transportation of the vehicle from the site of accident to Chandigarh. Further, the complainant had not supplied the required information and as such the claim was settled on non-standard basis and a sum of Rs.1,18,077/- was assessed being net loss payable to the complainant but the District Forum wrongly awarded Rs.3,26,106/- on account of repair of the truck, Rs.88,000/- on account of repair of dashboard and Rs.20,000/- as towing charges alongwith interest which is on the higher side.   On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant stated that the amount awarded by the District Forum is on the lower side as no amount of compensation has been awarded against the claim of Rs.one lac and only Rs.20,000/- have been allowed as transportation charges against the amount of Rs.40,000/-.  
8.      We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions   put forth on behalf of the parties and find that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 2.7.2008 near Sahib Ganj Masjid, District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh  while coming from Jharkhand to Punjab and due to said accident the driver of the vehicle and Cleaner  were stuck inside the front portion of the truck and died at the spot. FIR about the accident was lodged by one Ashwani Kumar, driver of some other truck. It is recited in the FIR that  the front portion of the truck was badly damaged and cabin of the truck  had to be  cut/dismantled to take out their dead bodies. Thus, the engine/front portion of the truck was not cut for transporting it to Chandigarh but it had to be cut for taking out dead bodies of its occupants who were stated to be died at the spot   and as such loss to the cabin and front portion was caused due to the said accident, therefore, the learned District Forum rightly allowed the claim of Rs.3,26,106/- on the basis of repair bill annexure P-3, Rs.88,000/- on the basis of receipt annexure P-4 for repair of the driver cabin and Rs.20,000/- as towing charges. The surveyor Sh.R.S.Arora who was deputed for final survey, in the ‘Detail of assessment’ had disallowed most of the parts but did not mention the reason for disallowing the same, so the same cannot be taken into consideration being one sided. The learned District Forum has granted interest @ 9% p.a. which is in the nature of penal interest and that too in the event of failure of OPs to pay the decretal amount within the stipulated period, so there is no justification to reduce the same.  
9.         No doubt, the complainant has placed on file receipt dated 10.7.2008 showing incurring of  towing charges to the tune of Rs.40,000/- for transporting the truck from Sultanpur (UP) to Manimajra but the learned District Forum allowed Rs.20,000/- which   in the given facts and circumstances of the case appears to be reasonable and justified as no affidavit of the person who had issued the bill is placed on the file and further the amount shown in the receipt appears to be on the higher side.  
10.       In the result, the impugned order dated 26.2.2010 is affirmed and consequently both appeals are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.


HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT ,