BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.188 of 2015

Date of Instt. 05.05.2015

Date of Decision :1.10.2015

Charandeep Singh R/o 2, Vivek Vihar, Nandanpur Road, Maqsudan, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd, Ist Floor, above SBI Main Branch, Near Hotel Skylark, Civil Lines, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd, Corporate & Registered Office:- Natraj, 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400069 through its Senior Divisional Manager.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Ravinder Manuja Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vikas Bhardwaj Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite parties are doing the business of General Insurance under the name and style of SBI General Insurance Company Ltd, Corporate & Registered Office:- Natraj, 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400069 and one of its branch at Ist Floor, above SBI Main Branch, Near Hotel Skylark, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. Complainant is owner of private motor car make Maruti Sazuki Swift bearing registration No.PB08-CK-9698 and got the same insured from the office of opposite party No.1 and accordingly a policy bearing No.0000000002183075 dated 21.10.2014 was issued to the complainant, which was valid from 21.10.2014 to 20.10.2015. Unfortunately on 26.11.2014 the car of the complainant met with an accident with a motorcycle near PAP Bridge, Jalandhar, in the said accident first of all right side of the car was damaged and rear tyre of the car also busted then the car went out of control, at the same time the car of the complainant got hit by another motorcycle on the left side of the car and damaged left side rear tail light. Complainant immediately called help centre of the opposite parties on the toll free No.18001021111 and got his claim registered under reference No.149591. Complainant received a call from one surveyor of the company, who introduced himself as Vikas Sikka. The said surveyor enquired the matter about the accident on the telephone only and directed the complainant to bring the accidental vehicle in the workshop to enable him to inspect and assess the loss. Damaged vehicle of the complainant was taken to Stan Autos situated at GT Road, Jalandhar through recovery van. Harpreet, employee of the Stan Autos completed the paper work and got signature of the complainant on some blank papers/performas/forms. The said employee of the Stan Autos recorded the entire damage of the vehicle including the left side tail light. An amount of Rs.1000/- was spent by the complainant for the recovery van from his own pocket. After 10 days when the complainant went to said workshop of Stan Autos to take delivery of the above mentioned car and came to know that left side tail light of the car was not replaced. On enquiry it was revealed to the complainant that surveyor of the opposite parties did not approve the said damage of left side tail light and held the same as unjustified, so the same was not replaced. The bill raised by the Stan Autos was also vague and not understandable. Complainant took the matter regarding the replacement of left side tail light of the above said damaged vehicle with the surveyor, but the surveyor did not pay any heed to the complaint made by the complainant and replied that he has done everything as per rules, so the left side tail light can not be replaced, if complainant wish to get the replace the same, he can do so at his own expenses. It is pertinent to mention here that inspite of the information, surveyor of the opposite parties did not come at the spot to assess the accident and to assess the loss caused to the vehicle in the said accident. The complainant got served registered legal notice dated 27.12.2014 to the opposite party No.1, which has been replied by the opposite party No.2 vide their letter dated 13.2.2015 received on 18.3.2015, vide which claim of the complainant has been rejected by saying that loss is admissible as per damages found fresh and in consonance with the cause of accident stated in the claim form. No survey on the spot was conducted by the surveyor appointed by the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for seeking redressal of his grievances and further suffering mental tension, agony, harassment, financial loss, inconvenience and cruelty on account of the said negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to the amount of Rs.2500/- being value of rear tail light and replacement charges and service tax etc. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.2500/- being value of the rear tail light and replacement charges and service tax etc. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that upon receipt of the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties had duly registered the claim and had deputed one Vikas Sikka Surveyor & Loss Assessor to assess the loss to the vehicle. The claim form dated 27.11.2014 was filled by the complainant and submitted with the opposite parties. Thereafter, vehicle was examined and necessary photographs exhibiting the extent of damage sustained by the vehicle were arranged and collected various other vehicle documents from the complainant/ insured. The said surveyor submitted his report dated 2.12.2014 whereby he assessed the final liability of the opposite parties as Rs.20,300/- which amount has been duly paid to the workshop by the opposite parties. An amount of Rs.800/- has been allowed by the surveyor towards towing of the vehicle. It is pertinent to mention that as per the claim form the complainant has described the accident as under:-

"After observing the red light signal, we abruptly applied brakes but in the meantime a following rashly driven another vehicle became out of control and dashed against the rear RHS of our car".

3. Even as per the claim form, the complainant admitted that the damage was only to his rear right hand side of the car and no where he has mentioned about any damage to the rear left hand side tail light including the light. The said story of the complainant has been concocted by the complainant in order to extract undue amount from the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention that the deputed surveyor Vikas Sikka is neither an employee nor agent of the opposite parties but he is an IRDA authorized independent surveyor registered vide SLA No.25850 and the report was treated as final. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OP1/A andEx.OP1/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.

7. The facts involved in the present complaint are not much disputed. It is not disputed that insured car of the complainant met with an accident on 26.11.2014 and was damaged. The damaged car was taken to M/s Stan Autos for repair. The complainant lodged claim with opposite party insurance company who appointed surveyor, Sh.Vikas Sikka, who submitted his report Ex.R3. The surveyor assessed the loss @ Rs.20,300/- which has been paid to the repairer i.e M/s Stan Autos. However, the surveyor disallowed the claim regarding rear left hand side tail light on the ground that damage to the left hand side rear tail light does not concide with the cause of loss. According to the opposite parties, in the claim form, the complainant has stated that on the way at site of occurrence, after observing red light signal, he abruptly applied brakes but in the meantime, a following rashly driven another vehicle became out of control and dashed against the rear RHS of their car, causing damage. So according to the opposite parties, according to nature of accident and mentioned in the claim form, offending vehicle had hit the car of the complainant on the rear right hand side causing damages and as such the damage to the left rear tail light is not consistent with the manner in which the accident took place and as such it was disallowed. Counsel for the complainant contended that first of all in the accident, right side of the car was damaged and than car went out of control as its rear tyre busted and then it got hit by another motorcycle on the left side of the car and left side rear tail light was damaged. In the complaint, the complainant has set-up a new version of the accident than given in the claim form Ex.C2 wherein he has stated that after observing the red light signal, they abruptly applied brakes but in the meantime a following rashly driven another vehicle became out of control and dashed against the rear right hand side of their car. So version of the accident given in the complaint is not consistent with the version mentioned in the claim form Ex.R2. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned the registration number of the above said motorcycle which hit on the left side of his car or name of its owner or driver. So the surveyor has given valid reason for disallowing the claim in respect of rear left tail light. It is well settled that surveyor's report has significant evidentary value unless it is rebutted by some reliable evidence. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties by leading any cogent and reliable evidence.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

1.10.2015 Member Member President