Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/164/2015

Jograj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manjeet Pathania

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/164/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16/03/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	14/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Jograj Singh son of Surjit Singh, resident of H.No.15-B, Dr. Jagdish Colony, Rajpura Road, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   SBI General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager/Officer Incharge, SCO 457-458, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160035.

 

2.   SBI General Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager/ Officer Incharge, “Natraj” 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Manjeet Pathania, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Simrandeep Singh, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant got his Truck bearing Regn. No. PB-11AX-8075 insured with the Opposite Parties from 10.02.2014 to 09.02.2015 vide insurance policy Annexure C-1. Unfortunately, on 13.08.2014, the aforesaid Truck met with an accident at Bihar, and was heavily damaged (). The driver of the Complainant informed the concerned Police Station vide Complaint Annexure C-2. Necessary intimation was also given to Opposite Party No.1, on the same day, upon which a Surveyor came to the spot to assess the loss to the vehicle. Thereafter, on 18.08.2014, the Complainant brought the accidental Truck to Patiala, for repairs, and submitted a provisional assessment/ estimate of Rs.4,17,700/- to the Surveyor. After getting the said truck repaired, from different vendors, the Complainant submitted original bills of Rs.3,91,900/- to Opposite Party No.1 (). However, as against this, the Opposite Party No.1 passed only a meager amount of Rs.88,301/- and credited the same into the account of the Complainant on 19.11.2014 through RTGS (Annex.C-6). It has been alleged that thereafter, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, a number of times, to reassess the claim, but his grievance has not been redressed. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, he got served a legal notice dated 29.01.2015 upon the Opposite Parties (), but to no avail. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their joint reply while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that upon intimation, they appointed a Surveyor, for spot survey and the said Surveyor after inspecting the vehicle, submitted his report dated 30.10.2014 (). As the report of the Surveyor for Rs.2,04,750/- was on higher side, therefore, he again submitted a fresh surveyor report for net loss of Rs.98,112/- after deduction of Rs.13,187.5P towards deduction of salvage (Rs.4,000/-), depreciation (Rs.7687.50P) and compulsory deduction (Rs.1500/-). It has been asserted that since the insured did not produce the original goods challan, therefore, claim was settled/paid on non-standard basis with 10% deduction, for Rs.88,301/- which was released to the Complainant on 17.11.2014. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

7.     It is observed that the commercial vehicle insurance policy was effective on the date of accident i.e. 13.08.2014. The Complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,91,900/- as per actual bills, but has not produced any documents, receipts/ bank statements/ cheque by which the whole payment was made to each and every vendor. It is further observed that the Complainant has produced only bills and not the receipts. Since nowhere on the bills words like amount paid, payment received is mentioned either in Hindi/ English/ Punjabi, therefore, no definite conclusion on the amount spent on the repair of the vehicle can be drawn.

 

8.     We have perused the Survey Report (Annex.R-1) of Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Surveyor, placed on record by the Opposite Parties. However, this Survey Report cannot be taken into consideration, as the license of the said Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Parties expired on 05.07.2014; whereas, the spot survey report was dated 15.08.2014. We have also examined the Survey Report dated 30.10.2014 of Mr. P.S. Oberoi, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, placed on record by the Opposite Parties as Annexure R-2. In the said survey report, the net loss assessed on repair basis has been worked out to Rs.2,05,150/-. Again, another survey report of the same Surveyor and Loss Assessor dated 30.10.2014 is also placed on record by the Opposite Parties at Annexure R-3. In the said survey report, the net loss assessed was to the tune of Rs.98,112/-. We are at loss to understand as to why the Surveyor and Loss Assessor has done so, without assigning any reasons, on the same date. Hence, his survey report (Annexure R-3) cannot be relied upon. 

 

9.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that no definite conclusion can be drawn, at this stage, regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is disposed of with the direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint another Surveyor & Loss Assessor, to re-assess the loss, and make the payment to the Complainant, accordingly. 

 

10.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties, failing which they shall be liable to pay whole of the amount of bills produced by the Complainant. It is made clear that in case, the Complainant is still dissatisfied with the assessment so made by the Opposite Parties, he can approach this Forum, for redressal of his grievance, again. 

 

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

Announced

14^th September, 2015                                                 Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                              MEMBER