Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/932/2011

Rajesh Bajaj S/o Anil Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Saini

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 932 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 02.09.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 16.01.2017

Rajesh Bajaj aged about 29 years son of Sh. Anil Bajaj resident of Gali No. 8, Azad Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., C/o Kuldhir Rana, near Kamani Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                             …Respondent. 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Amit Saini,  Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.              

             

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by Rajesh Bajaj under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent ( hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP) on the allegation that car of the complainant bearing registration No. Hr-02R-0303 model Swift Desire VDI which was insured with the Op Insurance Company vide insurance policy/cover note bearing No. 109000557056 valid from 04.08.2010 to 03.08.2011 met with an accident on 07.10.2010. Upon this, complainant intimated to the OP Insurance Company and after that got repaired his car from Hira Motors, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar and spent Rs. 1,42,542/- on its repair vide Bill No. BR10000866 dated 16.12.2010. Besides this, he also spent Rs. 1200/- as crane charges and Rs. 7400/- as cost of battery. All the original bills/invoice were given to the OP Insurance Company. Op Insurance Company also deputed surveyor/loss assessor who submitted his report to the OP Insurance Company. However, OP Insurance Company paid only Rs. 84,960/- to the complainant out of Rs. 1,42,542/- spent by the complainant. In this way, an amount of Rs. 57542/- has been wrongly withheld by the Op Insurance Company. The complainant has made so many requests to the Op Insurance Company but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to pay Rs. 66142/- i.e. Rs. 57542/- balance amount of repair and Rs. 1200/- as crane charges and Rs. 7400/- as battery charges and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections. Besides the preliminary objections on merit it has been stated that upon notice the Op Insurance Company immediately deputed Sh. Tarun Kapoor, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to survey and assess the loss of the car in question. The Surveyor & Loss Assessor submitted his report Annexure R-2 in which the net loss was assessed Rs. 90794.99 i.e. rs. 90795/- and after applying the relevant depreciation clause and subject to terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, an amount of Rs. 84,960/- has already been paid to the complainant. No further amount is payable in this claim. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of registration certificate as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of insurance policy/cover note as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of invoice/bill dated 16.12.2010 amounting to Rs. 1,42,542/- as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company as Annexure RW/A and RW/B and documents such as photo copy of claim form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure R-2, Attested photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that the car Swift Desire bearing registration No. HR-02R-0303 of the complainant was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide insurance policy bearing No. 109000557056 valid w.e.f. 04.08.2010 to 03.08.2011. It is also not disputed that the car in question was met with an accident on 07.10.2010. the only grievances of the complainant is that he spent Rs. 1,51,142/- on the repair of the car in question, however, the Op Insurance Company has made the payment of Rs. 84,960/- and balance amount has been wrongly and illegally withheld by the OP Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the copy of bill Annexure C-3.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company argued at length that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company as the Op Insurance Company had already paid Rs. 84,960/- to the complainant as per report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor and argued that the surveyor is the best person and the report of the surveyor cannot be disbelieved in the absence of any contradiction or ambiguity. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company further argued that no doubt surveyor and loss assessor assessed the total loss of Rs. 1,21,485/- out of which an amount of Rs. 43,362/- has been deducted on account of depreciation as the vehicle in question was of 2007 model. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company draw our attention towards the case law titled as “ New India Insurance Company Versus Maya, 2008 (2) CPJ page 182 National Commission wherein it has been held “that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is an independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act 1938”. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that although the OP Insurance Company had paid an amount of Rs. 84,960/- to the complainant on account of damage of the vehicle in question. However, from the perusal of surveyor report Annexure R-2, it is duly evident that an amount of Rs. 9440/- being 10% of the total assessed amount of Rs. 94,400/- has been deducted by the Op Insurance Company on account of delay intimation which is totally illegal and not tenable as the OP Insurance Company has totally failed to file any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Moreover, it is admitted case of the Op Insurance Company that the car in question met with an accident on 07.10.2010 and after that complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP Insurance Company and this fact has not been denied by the OP Insurance Company. Even, the surveyor and Loss Assessor has not made any adverse remarks in his report that there was any manipulation on the part of the complainant. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence and further in the absence of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy deduction of amount of Rs. 9440/- being 10% of the total amount assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor is totally illegal which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Insurance Company. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant that complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 1200/- on account of crane charges/toeing charges and Rs. 7400/- on account of battery is not tenable as in the surveyor report Annexure R-2, the charges of battery as well as crane/toeing charges had already been assessed by the surveyor and the same has been paid to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get some relief.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay Rs. 9440/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and also to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 16.01.2017.

                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                              PRESIDENT.  

 

        

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)   

                                                                                           MEMBER