Haryana

Kurukshetra

247/2018

Amarik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saraswati - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 247 of 2018.

Date of instt. 21.11.2018. 

                                                                     Date of Decision: 14.06.2019.

 

Amrik Singh son of Shri Amar Singh VPO Bodhni, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Saraswati Enterprises, Kaithal road, Pehowa, Kurukshetra 136128 (Haryana) through its Manager.

 

2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. having its Policy issuing office at 1^st Floor, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt, Ambala- 133001 through its Branch Manager.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Complainant in person.       

Sh. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Amrik Singh against Saraswati Enterprises and Iffco Tokio General Insurance, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant is owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR41H-5232 and same vehicle is insured with op no.2 vide policy No.M0359393 which was valid from 4.4.2018 to 3.4.2019. It is further averred that on 21.4.2018, the said vehicle was parked on road near village Bodhni and after that the said vehicle was found in damage condition by the complainant. The complainant approached the insurance agent and he advised him to approach op no.1 and to get his vehicle repaired under insurance policy. Thereafter, a survey was got done by op no.2 on 29.4.2018 and the official of the op no.2 had assured the complainant that expenses incurred on repair of the motor cycle will be paid. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.19,445/- in cash to op no.1 regarding repair of the vehicle and a tax invoice/ bill was issued by op no.1. It is further averred that after some time, only a sum of Rs.9500/- has been transferred by op no.2 in the account of complainant and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- has not been paid to the complainant. The complainant approached the ops in this regard but all in vain. There is great deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 has only repaired the motor cycle in question and the dispute if any is in between the complainant and op no.2. It is further submitted that motor cycle in question was brought to the agency of op no.1 on the instruction of op no.2 and the survey was also conducted by the surveyor. The motor cycle was repaired by op no.1 and an amount of Rs.19,445/- was received from the complainant and bill was issued accordingly. Remaining contents of complaint are denied.

4.             Op no.2 in its separate written statement submitted that after receiving intimation from complainant, answering op deputed an IRDA approved surveyor for survey of the damaged vehicle and loss assessment and said surveyor after thorough survey and detailed loss assessment and after making necessary deductions held that the liability of answering op comes to Rs.9344.99 and as per survey report company deposited an amount of Rs.9345/- in the account of complainant through NEFT dated 14.6.2018. The answering op has already paid the admissible claim amount to the complainant as per the policy terms and conditions. It is further submitted that during the examination of loss and perusal of claim papers, the appointed surveyor observed that some of the claimed damages were not in sequence with cause of loss as mentioned in the claim form by complainant. The surveyor discussed the same with the claimant and a registered letter dated 5.5.2018 was also sent to him for justification of same but he did not respond. The surveyor assessed the liability of the company as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The surveyor assessed the liability of the company by disallowing the damages which was not relevant to the instant claim. Details of not allowed repair work/ parts are mentioned below:

        Chassis frame not in sequence with cause of loss, Fender amount was not damaged, Gear Speedo, Pinion, Cable Fr. Brake, Cable speedo and spring side stand all these parts were not damaged and not allowed.

                The remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             From the copy of policy schedule Ex.C1, it is evident that motor cycle of complainant was insured with the op no.2 for the period 4.4.2018 to 3.4.2019. The motor cycle was got repaired from opposite party no.1 and an amount of Rs.19,445/- was charged by op no.1 from the complainant vide tax invoice Ex.C3. The op no.1 has also asserted that an amount of Rs.19,445/- was charged by him from the complainant. But the op no.2 has paid only an amount of Rs.9500/- to the complainant while relying upon the report of the surveyor but the op no.2 has not justified their act for paying less amount despite the fact that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.19,445/- to op no.1 for repair of the motor cycle due to intensive damage caused to it.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar, CA No.3253 of 2002 decided on 9.4.2009 has observed that

“In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.”

 

8.             The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The op no.2 is deficient in service by paying less amount and the complainant is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- from op no.2. However, as op no.1 only repaired the motor cycle, no liability of op no.1 of any kind is made out.

9.             In view of the above said case law as well as above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% on the above said amount from the date of order till actual realization. We further direct the op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 14.6.2019

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha)            (Neelam)       

        Member                             Member