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.158/2012

SH. JATAN LAL

S/O SH. JEEWAN RAM

R/O PLOT NO.33, GALI NO.18, OM VIHAR,

PHASE-1A, UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI-110059

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

PLOT NO.60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III,

NEW DELHI-110020

…………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order: 03.10.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President   

It is not in dispute that the truck of the complainant was duly insured with OP for the period 26.02.11 to 25.02.12 for IDV of Rs.5,15,000/-.  It is not in dispute that on 04.11.11 the aforesaid truck met with an accident at Fazilka, Punjab.

OP was duly informed about the accident and OP appointed a surveyor Mr. Rishi Arora who visited the site of accident and seen the condition of the truck on 06.11.11.  It is not in dispute that the claim was lodged with OP for a sum of Rs.2,31,706/- the amount incurred by the complainant for the repair of the aforesaid truck.

The contention of the OP is that the claim has never been repudiated rather the same was assessed as per IRDA approved and licensed surveyor and the claim has been settled for Rs.61,000/- and that amount was sent to the complainant through cheque. 

The contention of the complainant that the said cheque was returned back to the OP as it was not towards the total amount spent by complainant towards the repair of the truck.  Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.231706/- spent on the repair of the truck alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also for compensation of Rs.5 lakh and Rs.25000/- for litigation expenses..

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 

The Ld. Counsel for OP has referred to the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munmahesh Patel wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated.  The factual position was required to be established by documents.  Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction.” 

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for OP that in these proceedings, it requires detailed examination of assessed loss as the amount of damage suffered by the truck as well as the amount spent by the complainant and the  report of the surveyor etc cannot be considered in summary procedure.  There is no dispute about the law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but in the instant case there is nothing which cannot be decided by way of summary procedure as entire matter is based on the documents already filed by the parties.  It is significant to note that OP in its written submission has referred to the terms and conditions of policy.  Section 1 of the same is reproduced as under:

Section I- Loss of Damages to the vehicle Insured

Subject to a deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned below in respect of parts replaced:

It is significant to note that OP in its reply stated that complainant did not accept the cheque for sum of Rs.61,000/- sent by OP towards the settlement of the claim and in response to that OP in their letter dated 19.01.12 has given the details of the settlement which show that net amount payable is Rs.61,000/- which further show that as per the amount assessed by the surveyor in respect of metal parts is to the tune of Rs.49,200/- and after depreciation the net amount comes out to be Rs.29,520/-.  The amount of depreciation was Rs.19,680/-.  It is significant to note that in section 1 as reproduced above, there is no provision for depreciation on metal parts.  Nevertheless there is nothing on the record to suggest that these terms of policy were ever brought to the notice of the complainant.  Even in this letter the towing charges have been mentioned as Rs.2,500/-.  It is significant to note that the vehicle was towed away form Fazilka, Punjab to Delhi and the crane charges were Rs.22,000/-.  It is not feasible to tow a vehicle from Fazilka, Punjab to Delhi just for Rs.2,500/-.  Thus it shows that the report of the surveyor and the amount assessed by OP was not correct.  The complainant has placed on record the details of the bills of the money spent in respect of the vehicle.  The details reflects those parts which were required to be repaired or replaced.  In respect of certain parts that of plastic and rubber depreciation is to be taken into consideration.  The interest of justice will suffice if the claim is settled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied 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)                     (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT