Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 749.
Instituted on : 18.11.2010.
Decided on : 02.05.2016.
Rakesh s/o Sardara R/o village Dulhera Tehsil Bahadurgarah District Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Reliance General Insurance Company through its Regional manager, Branch Office at HDFC Bank building 2nd floor, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Tarun Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is owner of vehicle bearing no.HR63A-9867 and the complainant had purchased the said vehicle on HPA from M/s Magma Finance company. It is averred that complainant got insured the said vehicle from the opposite party on 22.02.2010 vide policy no.1501792334009686 for the period from 22.02.2010 to 21.02.2011. It is averred that on 08.07.2010 the alleged vehicle met with an accident due to coming of an animal in front of vehicle and the vehicle was damaged. It is averred that the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident and a surveyor was appointed by the company to assess the loss to the vehicle. It is averred that after informing the opposite party the complainant got repaired his vehicle from Sai Motors Bahadurgarh and spent a sum of Rs.200230/- on the repair of vehicle. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party to pay the claim amount but to no effect. It is averred that complainant sent a legal notice upon the opposite party but the same was not replied. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and against the natural justice. As such it is prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.200230/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that since the complainant has settled vide Ch No.806445 dated 13.08.2010 of Rs.46000/- through Claim reference number 2101165773 policy no.1501792334009686 in full and final settlement and has also given her consent to the same willingly and voluntarily, he is estopped from making further claim. Therefore, the compliant is not maintainable against the answering opposite party and be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that the liability on Repair cash loss basis was arrived at Rs.46000/- and the same was proposed to the complainant who gave his consent for the same and accepted the amount in full and final settlement of his claim. It is averred that the claim of the complainant has rightly been granted after the due examination and consideration. As such it is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per policy Ex.C3 the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and that the alleged vehicle met with an accident. It is also not disputed that as per survey report Ex.R2 opposite party has settled the claim of complainant for the amount of Rs.46000/-. The contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that the claim was settled vide Ch. No.806445 dated 13.08.2010 of Rs.46000/- towards full and final settlement and therefore the complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party. On the other hand contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the complainant has not received any amount from the opposite party.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the report of surveyor Ex.R2 the claim has been settled for Rs.46000/- but as per contention of complainant he has not received any amount. In this regard ld. counsel for the opposite party made a statement dated 21.04.2016 that Insurance Company is ready to reissue the cheque amount of Rs.46000/- if the previous cheque is not encashed by the complainant. Regarding the quantum of loss we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2013(3)CLT 126 titled Kaur Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside,” and Hon’ble National Commission in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that: “Insurance-Quantum dispute-Loss assessed by Surveyor awarded by State Commission-Amount spent on repairs claimed by complainant-Surveyor’s report to be given due weightage-Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute-Complainant free to approach Civil Court/IRDA/Arbitration-Time spent before Consumer Fora to be set off”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the claim as assessed by the surveyor as per his report Ex.R6.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.46000/-(Rupees forty six thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.18.11.2010 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
