DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==============

Avtar Singh son of Chattan Singh, resident of Village Chandiala, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through his General Manager (Regional), having its office SCO No. 212-214, 1^st Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                    MEMBER

Argued By:       Sh. Kuldeep Kaur, Advocate for the Complainant. .

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 The Complainant is the owner of a SKODA OCTIVA car bearing Registration No. PB-65-E-0012, insured with the Opposite Party. The relevant period of insurance for the instant complaint is from 12.8.2009 to 11.8.2010.

                    Unfortunately, the car met with an accident on 28.3.2010 and the vehicle was badly damaged. As per the Complainant, an F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station, Ambala on the same day.  The Complainant contacted the Surveyor Sh. P.K. Bansal of the Opposite Party on his mobile number. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle and made assessment of the damages.  On the instructions of the Surveyor, the Complainant brought the vehicle to M/s Krishna Auto Sales, Chandigarh for repair. The car was repaired and an invoice of Rs.1,39,200/- dated 12.6.2010 for labour charges and spare parts was made. However, the Opposite Party did not make the payment to the repairer, despite requests by the Complainant. The Complainant then issued a legal notice dated 23.7.2010 to the Opposite Party for making payment. The Insurance Company eventually issued a Cheque dated 01.12.2010 for Rs.90,000/- only to the Complainant.

                    The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party has neither paid the actual expenditure which was Rs.1,39,200/-, nor any interest on the delayed payment. The Complainant has thus filed this complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Party be directed to make payment of the bill amount amounting to Rs.1,50,200/-, along with compensation.

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Party.

3.                 Opposite Party in reply has stated that when intimation was received from the Complainant regarding the accident, Sh. P.K. Bansal was appointed as Surveyor to assess the claim. As per the report of the Surveyor (Annexure R-1) a sum of Rs.90,000/- was assessed by the Surveyor to be paid to the Complainant. This amount was paid to the Complainant on 01.12.2010.  Opposite Party has referred to the relevant portion of the Surveyor’s Report, which reads as under: -

“Loss has been assessed for Rs.90,000/- on repair basis. Claim amount is payable to the insured. This is a case of injuries to third party and the driver of the insured’s car has been charged under Section 279/ 337/ 427 IPC and the car has been released on superdari resulting into delay in claim intimation. It may be checked with the spot surveyor whether they had inspected the vehicle on the spot or in the police station. Initially the repairs were not authorized by us and a lot of time was lapsed during discussion with the insured. The insured got his car repaired from the authorized dealership and did not wait for the re-inspection and took away the car. However, the loss has been assessed for the clearly visible damages relevant with the cause and nature of accident.”

Opposite Party has stated that it is clear from aforesaid observations of the Surveyor that the Complainant did not allow the Surveyor to re-inspect the vehicle after it was repaired. However, the Surveyor has still made the assessment on the basis of initial assessment and allowed the claim of Rs.90,000/-. Opposite Party has further referred to judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission titled as Pradeep Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC) and Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) CPJ 278 (NC), wherein it has been held that the Surveyor’s report being an important document can not be brushed aside and must be given due relevance and importance unless it is rebutted by cogent evidence. Denying all other allegations of the Complainant, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                 The allegations of the Complainant relate to non-payment of the total claim amount by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has stated that an expenditure of Rs.1,39,200/- has been made. However, in the prayer clause, he has demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,200/- as bill amount, along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The Complainant has also stated that he has received Rs.90,000/- from the Opposite Party but the remaining claim and interest due to delay is still payable. But the Complainant has not contested the surveyor’s report nor has he placed on record any document showing protest lodged by him with the Opposite Party after the receipt of the claim amount as per the Surveyor’s Report. The Complainant has stated that the Opposite Party has delayed in making payment. However, it is evident from the records that the delay was because the report of the investigator has come in October, 2010 (Annexure R-1) for the reasons already mentioned above in Para 3.

7.                 In case SHOBIKA ATTIRE V. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (2006) 8 SCC 35, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: -

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Ss. 14 91)(d), 18 and 22 (1) – Compensation towards hardship, mental agony and harassment – Claim to such compensation against insurer, if on facts justified – Where the payment of insurance amount was delayed due to the inquiry instituted by the insurer into the incident and on the basis of the investigator’s report the insurer paid only part of the claim, held, apart from the actual claim, the insured not entitled to any payment of compensation towards hardship, mental agony and harassment – Insurance – Insurer’s liability – Delayed payment of claim amount – Compensation on ground of hardship, mental agony and harassment

In as much as, the Insurance Company was within its rights to cause an inquiry into the incident and it approved the appellant’s claim of a certain amount based on the report of the investigator, it is not possible to hold that apart from the actual claim, the Appellant was also entitled to payment of compensation towards hardship, mental agony and harassment.”                                                         (Para 24)

                    Further, in case NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. NIPHA EXPORTS (P) LTD., (2006) 8 SCC 156, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: -

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Ss. 4(1)(d), 18 and 22 (1) – Insurance amount – Payment if on facts belated warranting award of interest – Determination of – Due date for payment, held, was the date on which quantum of compensation and the party to whom it was to be paid (i.e. the principal or the agent) was settled and not the date on which correspondence ensued between the parties – Payment of insurance amount made within two months from the date of such settlement, although made long (3¼ years in this case) after ensuance of correspondence, held, not belated so as to warrant award of interest.”

8.                 Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid rulings, we do not think that the Complainant has any case for the balance unpaid claim or even interest on the payment. He has also not lodged any protest about the Surveyor’s Report. The payment has been made to him within 02 months after the receipt of the report of the surveyor. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

9.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30^th April,  2012.                                                

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)