Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/123/2018

Sh. Bhagat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Swarn Tiwana

29 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/123/2018
Date of Institution	:	08/03/2018
Date of Decision	:	29/05/2019

 

 

Sh. Bhagat Ram son of Sh. Khajana Ram, resident of village Sehnali, P.O. Mangal, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan H.P.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited Corporate Office at Natraj 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway 7 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400069 through its Incharge/Authorised Signatory.

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

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Vice Counsel for Sh. Swarn Tiwana, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. H.S. Bhandari, Vice Counsel for Sh. Inderjit Singh, Counsel for OPs

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, complainant happened to be owner of truck  bearing registration No.HP-62A-7443  which was insured with OPs vide insurance policy valid from 17.2.2014 to 16.2.2015. Maintained, on 30.8.2014, in the jurisdiction of this Forum, the truck met with an accident and was got repaired by the complainant and bill of Rs.7,10,570/- was raised which was paid by him.  The bill was submitted for reimbursement to OPs, but, they only partly passed the same and credited the payment of Rs.2,15,209/- and did not pay the remaining amount. Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for payment of balance amount of Rs.4,95,261/- alongwith damages of Rs.2,00,000/-etc.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed the joint reply. The crux of their reply is, present consumer complaint is time barred.  Averred, surveyor was appointed by the OPs and the genuine claim was partly allowed to the extent of Rs.2,15,209/-. Remaining was not a just claim and was repudiated. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         The complainant did not file rejoinder and rebuttal evidence despite opportunity and the same was closed vide order of this Forum.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.          Per pleadings and record produced, the truck had met with an accident on 30.8.2014 and part of the claim to the extent of Rs.2,15,209/- was allowed and credited in the saving bank account of the complainant on 4.3.2015. Remaining claim of Rs.4,95,261/- was disallowed on 4.3.2015. Thus, the plain meaning is the cause of action had arisen on 4.3.2015 when remaining part of the claim to the extent of Rs.4,95,261/- was disallowed.  Therefore, limitation had started running from 4.3.2015 itself and two years had expired on 4.3.2017.  Per law of consumerism, limitation provided for entertaining a consumer complaint is two years from the date of cause of action while the present consumer complaint was filed on 8.3.2018 i.e. to say time barred by more than one year.  There is no application for condonation of delay moved by the complainant, therefore, this consumer complaint is hopelessly time barred.
7.         The second debatable point is the complainant based his claim i.e. repair charges of the truck to the extent of Rs.7,10,570/- on account of the bill raised by the workshop concerned.  In order to give strength to the genuineness of his claim, the complainant was required to place on record the affidavit of the service manager of workshop concerned which had raised the repair charges of Rs.7,10,570/-, but, no such affidavit has been furnished.
8.         While contra, OPs had got the matter investigated from a surveyor and the report of the Surveyor, B&S Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors is on record as Annexure OP-1 who after due investigation found the claim i.e. actual repair charges to the extent of Rs.2,15,209/- i.e. of defective parts only. In such a situation, when the matter was got investigated from the expert and the claim was partly found genuine and it was allowed by the OPs, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that Rs.4,95,261/- still needs to be indemnified/reimbursed by the OPs.  In case titled as Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance, 2008 (3) CPJ 93 (NC)  it was held as under:-

                “it is the report of the surveyor which has to be given due weightage but since this case involves the quantum dispute, and as has been consistently held by this Commission, Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of quantum dispute as it will involve a detailed investigation, which cannot be dealt in the summary proceedings expected from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

9.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/05/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President