Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/185/2011

Surinder Kumar S/o Shadi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Gupta

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                      Complaint No. 185 of 2011.

                                                                                      Date of institution: 04.03.2011

                                                                                      Date of decision:02.06.2016.

Surinder Kumar Jain son of Sh. Shadi Ram Jain, R/o House No. 431-A, Roop Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-40001 (Registered office).
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 570, Rectifier House Naigaum Cross Road, Wadala (W), Mumbai-400031 (Policy issuing Office).
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.145-146, Top Floor, above VLCC, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh (Branch Issuance Office).
4. M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Chhachhrauli Road, Agresen Chowk, Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                      …Respondents.

 

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

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

 

Present:  Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.

               None for Op No.4.                  

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Surinder Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to make the balance payment of claim amount of Rs. 40695/- alongwith interest on account of damage to the car in a road side accident and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that  the complainant is registered owner of the LMV FORD IKON 1.3 FLAIR Car bearing registration No. HR-02K-0189 which was comprehensively insured with the OPs Insurance Company vide its Policy bearing No. 2004-792311018107 valid from 30.11.2009 to 29.11.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1,28,500/- The car of the complainant met with an accident on 15.11.2010 for which FIR bearing No. 125 dated 15.11.2010 at P.S. Banur District Patiala was lodged, due to which car of the complainant badly damaged. The complainant lodged his claim with the OPs Insurance company and completed all the requisite formalities. As desired by the OPs Insurance Company, the car in question was got repaired from M/s Gupta Motors Ambala Cantt. Complainant procured a cashless policy from the OPs Insurance Company, therefore, it was an obligatory duty of the OPs Insurance Company to incur all expenditure for repair of this damage vehicle from their own sources but they failed to discharge their obligatory duty which amounts to gross negligence on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complainant lodged a claim to the tune of Rs. 67,500/- of the  expenditure actually incurred by the complainant for the repair of damage car, as per directions given by the OPs Insurance Company and their surveyor against which the OPs Insurance Company illegally, arbitrarily ad against the terms of policy without prior intimation to the complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 1012274026 for Rs. 26,805/- only from the OPs Insurance Company whereas the complainant is entitled for the entire amount of Rs. 67,500/- towards actual expenditure incurred for repair of damage car. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared and filed its written statement whereas Op No.4 failed to file written despite so many dates, hence his defence was struck off vide order dated 06.07.2011. OPs No.1 to 3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs Insurance Company; this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; an intimation dated 16.11.2010 was received by the Ops Insurance company to the effect that the car bearing registration No. HR-02K-0189 has met with an accident on 15.11.2009. On receipt of the said intimation, the OPs Insurance Company immediately deputed Sh. Raman Galhotra Surveyor & Loss Assessor to survey and assess the loss. The said surveyor conducted the survey on 18.11.2010 and inspected the damaged car. The said Surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 26,805/- on repair basis after applying the relevant depreciation clause and subject to terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and submitted the report to the company. On receipt of report, the OPs Insurance Company immediately processed the claim of complainant and paid the amount of Rs. 26,805/- to the complainant on 27.12.2010 i.e. within a period of 42 days by crediting the amount in the account of the complainant in State Bank of India, Jagadhri through NEFT as full and final payment and now nothing is payable to the complainant and on merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

4.                     To prove his case, counsel for 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 pass book as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of cover note as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of bill No.1162 dated 12.12.2010 of Gupta Motors as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of Bill No. 1161 dated 12.12.2010 of Gupta Motors as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of cash memo of Krishna Lubricants as Annexure C-8 Photo copy of crane service charges as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Sonkar Zonal Head Reliance Gen. Ins. as Annexure RW1/A and documents such as Photo copy of pass book of complainant as Annexure R-1/1, Photo copy of surveyor report as Annexure R-1/2,Photo copy of discharge voucher as Annexure R-1/3, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-1/4 and  closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that complainant has spent Rs. 67,500/- on the repair of his car on account of accident took place on 15.11.2010 and in this regard an FIR bearing No. 125 dated 15.11.2010 at P.S. Banur District Patiala was lodged. In this way he was entitled to get amount of Rs. 67,500/- from the OPs Insurance Company but the OPs Insurance Company has only paid a sum of Rs. 26,805/- which is totally illegal and the OPs Insurance Company is bound to make the remaining payment of Rs. 40,695/- and draw our attention towards the Bills Annexure C-6 to C-9.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Insurance Company hotly argued that the claims of the complainant have been correctly settled and an amount of Rs. 26,805/- assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor vide his report Annexure R-R-2 has already been paid to the complainant and nothing is due against the Ops Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company further argued that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant after receiving the abovesaid amount as full and final settlement. Learned counsel for the Ops Insurance Company further argued that no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to controvert the reports of the surveyor and loss assessor. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

9.                     After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the claim of the complainant has been rightly settled by the Ops Insurance Company and amount of Rs. 26,805/- assessed by the Surveyor & Loss Assessor has already been paid as full and final settlement to the complainant. The contention of the complainant that he has spent Rs. 67,500 on repair of the car in question is not tenable to our mind as it is settled proposition of the law that credence should be given to the surveyor report in the absence of any discrepancy or ambiguity in the surveyor report. In the present complaint also, the complainant failed to file any report of expert surveyor and loss assessor to prove that the complainant had actually spent Rs.  67,500/- on the repair of car in question whereas OPs Insurance Company has filed surveyor report Annexure R-1/2 from which it is clearly evident that  complainant has suffered the loss to the tune of Rs. 26,805/- and the same was disbursed to the complainant vide discharge voucher Annexure R-1/3. Even the complainant has not pointed out any discrepancy or ambiguity in the Surveyor and Loss Assessors’ report Annexure R-1/2.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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 in open court.

Dated: 02.06.2016.     

           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.