Haryana

Karnal

CC/35/2017

Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B.R. Dahiya

12 Jul 2018

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No.35 of 2017

                                                      Date of instt. 24.01.2017

                                                      Date of decision 12.07.2018

 

Satpal HUF son of Shri Kapoori Ram resident of House no.857, Sector-9, U.E. Karnal, Haryana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited registered office Natraj 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway’s Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 through its Branch Manager SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. SCO no.144, Third floor, Sector -13, Urban Estate Karnal.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

     Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

               

 

 Present   Shri B.R. Dahiya Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Varinder Sharma Advocate for OP.

                   

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on complainant fully insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR05AG0002 with the against policy no.0000000003054223. On 27.11.2015 the vehicle was totally damaged. After the accident complainant sent intimation to the OP and on the instruction of the OP complainant sent the damage vehicle by crane to Bhatia Motors Karnal and the surveyor of the OP was also inspected the damaged vehicle at that time and complainant delivered all the necessary papers, blank cheque to the surveyor of OP and vehicle was lying with Bhatia Motors Karnal for three months who made the estimate Rs.18,40,540/- on 9.12.2015 and OP directed to send the damaged vehicle by crane to M/s Luxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. authorized dealer Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. plot no.82, Industrial Area, Phase-1 Panchkula, who made the estimate of Rs.10,12,647/-. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.45,000/- as parking charges to Bhatia Motors, Karnal for three months, Rs.5000/- paid to crane lifter Karnal to Panchkula and M/s Luxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Panchkula is also demanding of parking charges @ Rs.1000/- per day for the period from March, 2016 till its exit. Complainant lodged the claims of the total loss of vehicle no.05AG0002 with the OP bearing claim no.221672 and OP sought some documents relating to vehicle. As per demand of OP complainant submitted all the relevant/required documents. Inspite of submission of the required documents, OP neither made the payment of loss of vehicle. Complainant requested the OP so many time but OP has not got repaired the vehicle nor given the amount of loss of the vehicle. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.07.2016 in this regard to the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not informed the OP on time i.e.38 days from the incidence and the complainant has not provided necessary documents to the insurance company which was very necessary for settlement of claim; the insurance company intimated the complainant several time to provide the necessary documents i.e. claim form duly filled in all respect and signed, estimate of repairs, invoice/bill/cash memo of repairs/replacement of parts, copy of FIR information regarding accident and third party loss or injury, if any, KYC norms, ID and resident proof- as mentioned in the policy, cancelled cheque of his bank for the NEFT payment with IFSC & MICR code, Towing Bill if any and RC, DL, Route Permit, Fitness certificate, loan challans particulars for verification, progress the repair and produce the vehicle for re-inspection, so that the survey report release in time. The insurance company also send reminder to the complainant many time but even after this the complainant neither gave any response nor provide the above mentioned documents to the insurance company. Then insurance company constrained to conclude that complainant is no longer interested in the claim lodged then insurance company has closed the claim at complainant end as no claim vide letter dated 14.02.2016. It is further submitted that no FIR has been lodged by the police about the alleged accident. The loss assessed to the tune of Rs.4,62,629/- by independent surveyor B & S insurance. Two different surveyor’s were appointed name Mr. Pradeep Chopra and B&S surveyor in two different locations as the insured had shifted the vehicle from Bhatia Motors, Karnal to Luxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. at Panchkula. Both the surveyor’s assessment suggest of repair of the vehicle whereas the insured is requesting for the total loss of the vehicle hence has not repaired the vehicle till date due to which there is a considerable delay in response from the insured’s end. The IDV value of the vehicle is Rs.8,20,000/- and the assessed repair liability falls to Rs.4,62,629/- hence any repair liability falling below the 75% of the IDV is to be repaired as per the policy terms and conditions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                                                                                                                                                                                                    

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 4.1.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Deputy Manager Legal Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R70 and closed the evidence on 09.05.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute that complainant was the registered owner of vehicle no.HR05AG0002, which was insured with the OP vide policy no.0000000003054223. The said vehicle met with an accident on 27.11.2015 during the insurance policy period.

7.             According to the complainant the said vehicle was totally damaged whereas according to the OPs the said vehicle did not cover under the total damage and the same was repairable.                                                                                                                                    

8.             The complainant alleged that the damaged vehicle was shifted to Bhatia Motors Karnal and the surveyor of the OP inspected the damaged vehicle at there. It is further alleged that Bhatia Motors Karnal made the estimate of the loss to the tune of Rs.18,58,734/- on 9.12.2015. It is further alleged that as per direction of the OP, the damaged vehicle was shifted to M/s Luxmi Motors Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. authorized dealer of Mohinder and Mohindra at Panchkula who made the estimate of the loss to the tune of Rs.10,12,649/-.

                On the other hand, the OP no.1 i.e. SBI Gen. Insurance Company contended that the OP has appointed first surveyor when the vehicle was lying at Bhatia Motors Karnal. Thereafter, the complainant shifted his vehicle to M/s Luxmi Motors Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. at Panchkula where the second surveyor was appointed who also assessed the loss of the damage vehicle. The loss assessed to the tune of Rs.4,62,629/- by independent surveyor B & S insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, vide report dated 26.12.2016 Ex.R24.  It is further contended that the repair assessment by both the surveyor is below 70% of the insured declared value which was Rs.8,20,000/- so the vehicle was repairable and not covered under the total loss. He further contended that the insured was requesting for total loss of the vehicle which was not possible as per the report of the surveyor. It is further contended that the surveyors as well as the OP asked the complainant to go with the repair of the vehicle and insurance company asked the complainant several times to provide the necessary documents i.e. claim form duly filled in with all respect alongwith bills of repairs, copy of FIR etc. but the complainant did not provide any such document. It is further contended that the company send reminder to the complainant time and again but the complainant neither gave any response nor provide any documents as demanded by the OP. So the OP was constrained to conclude that complainant was no longer interested in the claim lodged and insurance company has closed the claim as no claim vide letter dated 14.02.2016. It is further contended that there was delay of 38 days in giving the intimation to the OP.

9.             To prove his case the complainant has produced the estimate Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 and stated that according to these estimates the vehicle was covered under the total loss. It is pertinent to mention here that appointment of surveyor by OP at both the points i.e. at Karnal as well as Panchkula has not denied by the complainant. The OP has produced the letter dated 12.7.2016 Ex.R7 written by B&S insurance surveyor to the complainant wherein it has been specifically mentioned that (1) the Preliminary assessment has been done. The repair assessment is below 75% of the insured declared value. The mode of settlement as per policy terms and conditions is repair basis. (2)  You are requested to proceed with repairs of vehicle and please do give us opportunity to conduct the during repair inspection as and when required and (3) loss on account of pilferage and aggravation of loss (due to prolonged exposure to nature) if any will not be considered in the final assessment as per policy terms and conditions. The OP produced letter dated 18.7.2016 Ex.R8, letter dated 2.8.2016 Ex.R9 and letter dated 29.08.2016 Ex.R10 which were issued reminder to the abovesaid letter but the complainant did not response and not provided any document. Thereafter, the OP vide letter dated 14.12.2016 Ex.R11 informed the complainant that the claim has been closed as No Claim.

10.            The OP has also placed the surveyor report Ex.R15, vide which the loss was assessed by B & S Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors to the tune of Rs.4,62,629/- which is less than 75% of the insured value as the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.8,20,000/-. In this regard we can rely upon the authority2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938. By relying the report of the surveyor the loss of the vehicle is less than 75% of the IDV value. The estimate produced by the complainant cannot be relied against the report of the surveyor. Therefore, the vehicle was not covered under the total loss and the same was repairable. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle comes under the total loss rather the OP has proved that the vehicle was not covered under the total loss and the same was repairable but the complainant has not got repaired the same inspite of the several request by the OPs. Hence we found no deficiency on the part of the OP.

11.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we found not merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to get repair his vehicle as per terms of the policy and thereafter made claim with the OP. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.07.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                       (Anil Sharma)

                            Member