CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.378/2012

SH. AMIT DHANKAR

S/O SH. ANOOP SINGH DHANKAR

R/O 34A, CANARA BANK STREET

MUNIRKA VILLAGE, NEW DELHI-110067

                                    …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

THE DEPUTY MANAGER,

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

OPP. STATE BANK OF INDIA,

OKHLA PHASE III, NEW DLEHI-110023

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order: 23.05.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

It is not in dispute that car of complainant was duly insured with OP for the period 08.11.2010 to 07.11.2011.  It is not in dispute that the aforesaid car met with an accident.  It is not in dispute that the car was taken to authorised workshop of Rama Motors.  Complainant has placed on record invoice dated 21.09.2011 for a sum of Rs.15,497/- towards the repair of the car.  It is not in dispute that OP appointed a surveyor namely Mr. Saneev Singh.  The contention of complainant is that surveyor approved the claim for a sum of Rs.8,900/-.  It is not in dispute that OP paid only a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards claim amount of Rs.8,900/- leaving a balance amount of Rs.5,900/-.  Complainant has claimed this amount alongwith interest as well as Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. 

The contention of OP is that the loss was assessed on the basis of guidelines prescribed by IMT.  Out of the total bills submitted by complainant only Rs.3,059/- was found to be payable and the said amount has been paid to complainant.

We have heard complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for OP and carefully perused the record.

Complainant has placed on record the copy of the bill which shows that surveyor has approved a sum of Rs.8,900/-.  In fact OP has failed to prove as on what basis the amount of Rs.3,059/- has been calculated by the OP.  OP has not even referred to any particular rule of IMT which permits OP to deduct the amount.  Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,497/- however, he has claimed the amount as approved by the surveyor. i.e. Rs.8,900/- out of which amount of Rs.3000/- has been paid. 

OP is directed to pay balance amount of Rs.5,900/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

        (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                       (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT