Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 121

                                                                   Instituted on     : 13.03.2019.

                                                                   Decided on      :  07.03.2023

Vinay age-29 years S/o Sh. Birender Singh, R/o VPO Asthal Bohar, District Rohtak.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ...........Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. unit No. 644-45/19, Civil Road, Opp. Services Club, Rohtak, Haryana through its Manager.

……….Opposite party

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Shri Pardeep Dangi, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant had purchased a general insurance policy for his Ritz Car bearing registration no.HR46D-5136 vide policy No. MOQ1147393 dated 28.05.2017 from opposite party and paid amount of Rs.22731/- to the opposite party. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 15.06.2018 and the information regarding the same was given to the officials of opposite party. The accident vehicle was sent to the Long Drive Auto Care for its repair and the final bill against the repairing was generated of Rs.47,439/-. All repairing work was surveyed by surveyor of opposite party and all the necessary documents/bills were submitted in the office of opposite party. Thereafter complainant paid the said repairing amount of Rs.47439/-. But opposite party has credited only Rs. 27801/- in the bank account of complainant on 01.08.2018. It is further submitted that complainant has approached many times to opposite party for the remaining claim amount i.e. 19638/-. But the officials of the opposite party gave baseless reasons that he has not submitted the computer generated bills etc. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the rest amount i.e. Rs.19638/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and to pay an amount of Rs.21,000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs.5100/- for legal notice to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that a claim was intimated with the opposite party alleging damages suffered to the insured vehicle due to its involvement in an accident dated 17.06.2018. Upon intimation of the claim an IRDAI licensed surveyor was appointed to assess the damages caused to the insured vehicle. The surveyor assessed the damages for an amount of Rs. 36,895/- after waiving off the depreciation as per the add-on opted by the complainant. The surveyor in his report had observed that only fresh damages were assessed. Further, after the repairs were completed, the surveyor re-inspected the vehicle to ascertain that the repairs were in accordance with the assessment of the surveyor. Further surveyor observed that the bills in support of the spare parts had not been provided and hence, the local market spare part rate had been considered. Thereafter on receipt of the surveyor’s recommendations and the claim documents, the claim was duly scrutinized and was settled for an amount of Rs.27,801/-. The complainant himself has accepted that the claim was duly settled and the claim amount was credited to his account. Hence, there arises no liability on part of the opposite party to pay any sum to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.04.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on 02.07.2021.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.47439/- on the repair of his vehicle  but the opposite party has credited only Rs.27801/- to the account of complainant.  To prove the same complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.C5 as the final bill whereas the opposite party has paid an amount of Rs.27801/- against the alleged bill. The complainant has placed on record copy of invoice Ex.C5 but the same is merely an invoice.  On the other hand, opposite party in its reply has admitted that the surveyor has assessed the damages in the vehicle in question for an amount of Rs.36895/- after waiving off the depreciation as the add-on opted by the complainant but after scrutiny, the claim  was settled for an amount of Rs.27801/-. As per written statement the surveyor observed that the bills in support of the spare parts had not been provided by the complainant and hence, the local market spare part rate had been considered by him at the time of assessing the loss. The complainant has placed on record the bills Ex.C6 to Ex.C9. These bills amounting to Rs.25401/- issued against the parts and in these bills labour charges are not included. We have minutely perused the survey report Ex.R3 at page no.2 under the head ‘the main assessment summary’, as per the surveyor the net assessment value of the repair of the vehicle comes to Rs.36895/- whereas on the last page of the report(paging not done) it has been mentioned that net liability against the insurance company comes to Rs.27801/- but this assessment cannot be considered.  In this regard it is observed that  the policy of the complainant is zero dep policy. Hence as per our opinion  the complainant is entitled for the claim as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.36895/- which includes the labour charges.  As the opposite party has already paid an amount of Rs.27801/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.9094/- to the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.9094/-(Rupees nine thousand and ninety four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.03.2019 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.   

7.                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:

07.03.2023

                                                         .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        .......................................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member