Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/514/2018

Baljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Munish Raj Chaudhary

01 Jan 2020

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	514 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	13.09.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	01.01.2020

 

 

 

 

Baljinder Singh son of Harbans Singh, resident of House No.1815, St.No.5, Sekha Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Royal Sundaram General Co. Limited, SCO No.82, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh 160040 through its Branch Manager.

2]  Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Corporate Claims Department, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai 600 097

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                                        

 

Argued by :-

Sh.Munish Raj Chaudhary, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sachin Sharma, Adv. for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant got his Toyota Fortuner Car bearing Regd. No.PB-10-DR-9494 insured with OPs vide Policy No.VPC0955373000100 effective from 1.3.2018 to 28.2.2019 by paying the premium of Rs.62,752/-.  It is averred that the said insured car of the complainant met with an accident at Main Road, Rampura Phul and mater was duly intimated to OPs, who appointed Surveyor to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss.  The surveyor inspected the vehicle and thereafter the car was repaired for an amount of Rs.1,68,275/-.  It is submitted that the claim lodged with the OPs for reimbursement of repair cost of the insured car has been repudiated by them on the flimsy ground that the damages to the vehicle are not inconsonance to the cause of accident narrated in the claim form.  Alleging the said repudiation as illegal and a deficient act on the part of OPs, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the Surveyor in his report observed that the damages did not tally with the cause of accident.  It is stated that net assessment of the loss was valued at Rs.1,41,604/- by the Surveyor. It is further submitted that the answering OPs after scrutinizing the claim and relying on the findings made by the Surveyor in his report rightly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 22.4.2018.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The matter is not disputed to the extent that complainant got his Toyota Fortuner Car bearing Regd. No.PB-10-DR-9494 insured with OPs vide Policy No.VPC0955373000100 effective from 1.3.2018 to 28.2.2019 by paying the premium of Rs.62,752/- and said insured car met with an accident during insurance coverage period.

 

7]       It is the stand of the complainant that the insured vehicle get damaged in an accident during policy period on 24.4.2018.  Thereafter, it got repaired for which he incurred expense to the tune of Rs.1,68,275/- and the claim lodged for reimbursement of said repair cost has been repudiated by the OPs, which supplied a cause of action to the complainant to file present complaint. 

 

8]       The Opposite Parties in their reply submitted that an IRDA Licensed Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, who vide its report observed that the damage did not tally with the cause of accident. It is also submitted in the reply that Net Assessment of loss was valued at Rs.1,41,604/-. 

         It is apparent on record that despite of the assessment made by the Surveyor, the OPs chose to repudiate the claim of the complainant claiming that after scrutinizing the claim papers and relying on the findings made by the surveyor in his report they repudiated the claim as the damages occurred to the vehicle did not tally with the cause of accident.

 

         We have thoroughly perused the Surveyor Report as placed on record by the complainant (Ann.-3) Page No.16 to 18.  To our utter surprise, the report placed on record seems to be Preliminary Surveyor Report and is not a Final one. There is no final assessment made in the said report of the Surveyor as has been claimed by the OPs.  Also we do not find any reason to repudiate the genuine claim as per the Surveyor’s Report placed on record.    

 

9]       The Final Survey Validation Details, as mentioned in the Report (Ann.-3) at Page No.17, is reproduced as under for ready reference:-

 

Final Survey Validation Details

 

Damages Tally with the cause of Accident?	No	RI Required?	Yes
Part Repair Authorization Required?	No	Repair Authorization Given?	No
Assessment Dispute?	No	Violation of ‘Limitations as to Use’?	No
Old Rusted Damages Identified?	No	Repairs Commenced/Completed before Survey?	No
Inconsistency between Damages and Injuries?	No	Intentional Damages	No
Is High-end Car?	No	Anh Malicious Damage?	No
Certification Required?	Yes	Certification Reason	NA

 

10]     From the above, it is clear that the report of the Surveyor is self-contradictory as on the one hand it states that the damages did not tally with the cause of accident and on the other side against the relevant columns of Old Rusted Damages, Intentional Damagers/Any Malicious Damages, In Consistency between Damages and injuries, a negative view has been mentioned by the Surveyor in the report, which very cogently supports the claim of the complainant as genuine. This self-contradictory details establishes otherwise that the claim of the complainant is valid and the damages do occur to the vehicle in the accident. There is a duly sworn affidavit of the Surveyor, furnished by the OPs at Page No.47 Ann.OP-5 which reveals that the amount of assessed loss is to the tune of Rs.141,604/-.

 

11]      It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case  Dabirudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), has categorically held that ‘Surveyor’s report being important document, cannot be easily brushed aside.’.   It is thus clear that the Surveyor’s report is final, unless challenged by cogent evidence to contradict the same.  The complainant did not challenged the assessment so made by the Surveyor.    

 

12]      From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OPs have illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant and as such remained deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against the OPs with following directions:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.1,41,604/- to the complainant, as assessed by the Surveyor.  
2. To pay a compensation  amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing avoidable harassment;
3. To pay litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

1^st January, 2020                    

                                                                             Sd/-             (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER