STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

M/s  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.139-140, Sector 8/C, Chandigarh, through its Senior Executive Sh.Sachin Ohri.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1. Ravi Kumar H. No. 3040, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Charisma Gold Wheels Pvt. Ltd. 7 Indl. Area, Phase I,

Chandigarh. 

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

              Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, Advocate for respondent                    no.1.

              Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh.Neeraj           Pal Sharma, Advocate for respondent no 2.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.07.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed Opposite Party No.1(now appellant), as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.54,549/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy”.

2.             The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed.

3.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a new Hyundai I-10 Car,  from Opposite Party No.2, on 19.4.2010, and got the same insured, with Opposite Party No.1, vide policy No.OG-11-1201-1801-00000509, for the period from 19.4.2010 to 18.4.2011. The said vehicle, met with an accident on 1.6.2010.  Opposite Party No.2, estimated the loss, in the sum of Rs.1 lac. The complainant, intimated about the accident to Opposite Party No.1, which deputed a surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.8,296/-, ignoring the internal damage, against the estimate of loss prepared by Opposite Party No.2. It was stated that thereafter the claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.1, but it repudiated the same(claim), illegally. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of Opposite Party No.1, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

4.             Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, admitted the factum, with regard to the issuance of insurance policy and involvement of the vehicle, in question, in the accident. It was stated that, on receipt of the information, regarding the accident, a surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8296.35. It was further stated that the complainant failed to submit the original bills of repairs, for the parts purchased. It was further stated that he also failed to produce the repaired vehicle,  for re-inspection. It was further stated that, accordingly, the claim was legally and validly repudiated. It was denied, that Opposite Party No.1, was in any way, deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             In its separate written version, Opposite Party No.2, stated that the entire grouse of the complainant, in the complaint,  was against Opposite Party No.1,  and , thus, no case was made out against it (Opposite Party No 2). It was denied, that Opposite Party No.2, was in any way, deficient, in rendering service.   The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/ Opposite Party No.1.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

10.           The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that, no doubt, the vehicle of the complainant, met with an accident. He further submitted that, in the bills, produced by the complainant, even the price of the consumable articles, as also of plastic parts, of the vehicle, which were damaged, was included.  He further submitted that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, no claim amount could be paid by Opposite Party No.1, for consumable items and the plastic parts. He further submitted that even the complainant, did not cooperate with Opposite Party No.1, as he neither submitted the original bills of repairs  nor got re-inspected the vehicle, after the same was repaired. He further submitted that the report of the Surveyor, who was appointed by Opposite Party No.1, was to the effect, that the loss assessed,  was to the tune of Rs.8296/-. He further submitted that the District Forum, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant was entitled to the amount of loss, as per the bills of repairs and replacement of parts, which were damaged. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

11.           On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent no.1/complainant, submitted, that it was not the duty of the respondent no.1/complainant, to take the vehicle after repairs, to Opposite Party No.1, for re- inspection, as there was no such condition, in the insurance policy. He further submitted that even the demand of Opposite Party No.1, to the effect, that the complainant should produce the old parts, was also untenable. He further submitted that, no evidence, was produced by Opposite Party No.1, that any of the damaged parts, which were replaced were of plastic. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.1, was liable to pay the amount, as per the bills,  as the report of the surveyor, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.8236/-,  was not based on any tangible data and material. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

12.           Undisputedly, the complainant, being the registered owner of the vehicle , in question, got insured the same with Opposite Party No.1, for the period from 19.04.2010 to 18.04.2011. It is also not disputed, that the said vehicle, met with an accident on 01.06.2010,  i.e. during the currency of the insurance policy. Undisputedly, an FIR was lodged immediately and the claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.1. The vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.2, which assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1 lacs. Once the vehicle, had been repaired, by Opposite Party No.2, it was the duty of the Official of Opposite Party No.1, to inspect the same. It was not the duty of the complainant, to take the vehicle, for re-inspection by an Official of Opposite Party No.1, after the same had been repaired. The bills of repairs are at pages 40 to 43 of the District Forum file. The receipt dated  27.08.2010, in the sum of Rs.15000/- (at page 37) and  the receipt dated 12.11.2010, in the sum of Rs.39,549/- (at page 38) of the District Forum File,  clearly evidence, that the total amount of Rs.54,549/-, was paid by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.2, for the repair of the accidental vehicle, aforesaid. The Official(s) of Opposite Party No.1, could go to the garage of Opposite Party No.2, re-inspect the vehicle, and also obtain the data from it, regarding payment made by the complainant, towards repair of the same. However, Opposite Party No.1, did not bother to do so. Vide letter dated 07.07.2010, Annexure R-2, the complainant was asked by Opposite Party No.1, for re-inspection of the repaired vehicle alongwith old parts as also original bills of repairs and parts purchased. Annexure R-1 is the letter dated 15.07.2010, which was sent to the complainant,  that due to his non-cooperation and non-submission of essential requirements, Opposite Party No.1, was unable the process his claim, as a result whereof, the same stood repudiated. It appears that Opposite Party No.1, was in a hurry,  to repudiate the claim, in an illegal manner. The duty, which was cast upon Opposite Party No.1, to re-inspect the vehicle, after the same was repaired, was, on the other hand, put on the shoulders of the complainant. Under these circumstances, repudiation of the claim, as a whole, was not at all justified. Thus, Opposite Party No.1, was grossly deficient, in rendering service.

13.           The next question, that falls for determination, is, as to whether, in the bills, referred to above, the cost of consumable articles, and price of the plastic parts, was also included and, if so, whether the complainant was entitled to the same. It is evident from the bill at page 25/41 that for gasket-oil screen amount of Rs.5.75/-, was charged. It is further evident from the bill at page 26/42 that for refrigerant-AC gas amount of Rs.285/- was charged. For engine oil shell Rs.1486.73 were charged. For coolant Rs.426.68 were charged and for filter assay-engine oil Rs.148.98 were charged. These could certainly be said to be consumables items. The complainant, therefore, could not claim any amount, paid by him, to the repairer (Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2), for these consumable items, from Opposite Party No.1. However, Opposite Party No.1, failed to prove, on record, that any plastic parts, were replaced. The District Forum, was required to deduct the amount of Rs.2353.14, paid by the complainant for consumable items, from the claim, submitted by him, but it failed to do so. It is, therefore, held that the complainant was entitled to Rs. 52,195.86 instead of Rs.54,549/-. The order of the District Forum, deserves to be modified to this extent.

14.           Now coming to the letter dated 07.07.2010,  which was written to the complainant, by Opposite Party No.1, informing him that the surveyor had assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.8,296/-,  it may be stated here that the report of the surveyor was not sent to him. R-3 is the final survey report of the surveyor, who was appointed by Opposite Party No.1. The final survey report is not based on any data or material. All the items, mentioned in the bills, referred to above were not detailed by the Surveyor, in his survey report. It was only after mentioning all the parts, which were repaired or replaced, on the basis of bills, in his report,  that the Surveyor could come to the conclusion, claim in respect of which items was permissible. Nothing was mentioned by the Surveyor, in his report, as to on the basis of which evidence, he came to the conclusion,  that claim in respect of the other items mentioned, in the bills, was untenable. Without considering the repair bills, in proper perspective that the Surveyor came to a wrong conclusion, that the complainant was only entitled to Rs.8,296/-. Even no affidavit was filed by the surveyor, by way of evidence, to support his report Annexure R-3. No reliance therefore, could be placed on such a cryptic and baseless report of the Surveyor. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar, Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002, decided on 09.04.2009, it was held by the Supreme Court, that the report of the Surveyor, is not always last and final word for settlement of claim, nor it is binding on the insurer or insured. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case

15.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

16.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is modified, in the following manner:-

i)                 Opposite Party No.1/ appellant,  is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 52,195.86, to the complainant/respondent no.1, alongwith interest @9% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

ii)               The other directions and relief granted, by the District Forum, shall remain unaltered.

17.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

February 6, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg