Punjab

Sangrur

CC/480/2018

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Rishav Dev Singh

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No.480

 Instituted on:   20.11.2018

                                                                        Decided on:     13.09.2022

 

Balbir Singh son of Moti Singh, resident of Village Buraj, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur through special attorney Harpal Singh son of Balbir Singh, resident of Village Buraj, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.                                                       

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Jind Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. 21, Patuilos Road, Chennai-600002 through its General Manager.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For  complainant       : Shri Rishav Dev Singh, Adv.              

For  OPs                     : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

 

QUORUM                             

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL   : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                               : MEMBER

 

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             The complainant has filed this complaint alleging  that he is consumer of the OPs by getting insured his vehicle make LPS 4018 having registration number PB-13-AL-7785 for the period from 30.3.2018 to 29.3.2019. The case of complainant is that his vehicle met with an accident on 5.7.2018 at about 5.30 AM near Hoshiarpur, as such the same was got repaired and spent an amount of Rs.8,62,139/- and intimation was given to the OPs about the accident. The OPs appointed surveyor to examine the vehicle, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,32,000/- only and the OPs paid an amount of Rs.3,32,000/- only and withheld the remaining amount of Rs.5,30,139/- without any reason.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.5,30,139/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.  

2.             Upon notice, OPs number 1 and 2 appeared and filed written reply wherein preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable as the claim has been settled as per the surveyor’s assessment. Further it is stated that as per policy condition number 7, when liability is admitted by the insurance company, any dispute regarding quantum is to be referred to arbitrator. On merits, the insurance of vehicle is admitted. It is further stated that as per the assessment done by the surveyor, the gross assessment was worked out at Rs.3,93,283/- and thereafter he has deducted Rs.14608/- towards depreciation, Rs.40763/- towards IMT 23 parts and Rs.17068/- towards IMT 23 depreciation.  Further a deduction of Rs.5000/- was made towards salvage, as such, the net liability of Rs.3,14,326/- was paid to the complainant.  IMT 23 clause has also been mentioned in the reply. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The parties produced their respective evidence and closed thereafter.

4.             We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle make LPS 4018 having registration number PB-13-AL-7785 for the period from 30.3.2018 to 29.3.2019 vide policy, a copy of which on record is  Ex.C-3. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 5.7.2018 at about 5.30 AM near Hoshiarpur, as such the intimation was given to the OPs about the accident. The complainant though requested the Ops to make the remaining amount to the complainant, but nothing was paid despite serving of legal notice dated 16.10.2018 through his counsel, copy of which is on record as Ex.C-9. The learned counsel has further contended that the Ops have wrongly withheld the remaining amount of claim i.e. Rs.5,30,139/- which should be paid along with interest.  Further to support such contention, the complainant has relied upon various bills which are on record s Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8.

6.             The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complaint is not maintainable as the OPs have paid the claim as per the conditions of the policy in question.  Further the learned counsel has contended that as per policy condition number 7, when liability is admitted by the insurance company, any dispute regarding quantum is to be referred to arbitrator. It is further contended that as per the assessment done by the surveyor, the gross assessment of loss was worked out at Rs.3,93,283/- and thereafter he has deducted Rs.14608/- towards depreciation, Rs.40763/- towards IMT23 parts and Rs.17068/- towards IMT 23 depreciation.  Further a deduction of Rs.5000/- was made towards salvage, as such, the net claim of Rs.3,14,326/- was paid to the complainant as per the survey report.

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the claim amount has already been paid by the OPs to the complainant as per the survey report, copy of which on record is Ex.OPs/4.  Moreover, the copies of the bills produced by the complainant are not authentic one like Ex.C-6 is the bill showing cabin repair/painting i.e. Rs.65,000/-  and Ex.C-7 bill for body alignment etc. Rs.1,20,000/-.  When in the present case the OPs have already paid the claim amount as per the survey report of the surveyor, who is an IRDA approved person to submit such a report.  Further to support such a contention, reliance can be placed at Iffco Tokio General Insurance company Limited versus Beena Raghav 2015(3) CPJ 75 (NC), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the report prepared by the surveyor was of significant and evidentiary value cannot be ignored and dismissed as such by saying that ‘assessed loss’ cannot be considered trustworthy without giving valid reasons.  As such, we find that there is nothing wrong with the Ops in settling the claim of complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

                                Pronounced.

 

                                September 13, 2022.