Punjab

Sangrur

CC/390/2017

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shadi Chaudhary Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S.Shergill

28 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  390

                                                Instituted on:    04.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       28.12.2017

 

Ajit Singh son of Sh. Milkha Singh, resident of Village Bhumsi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Shadi Chaudhary Motors (TATA Motors Authorised Service Station), Dhuri Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur, through its Manager.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Railway Station Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For Opp. party No.2 :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

For OP NO.1             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ajit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 2 by getting insured his truck bearing registration number PB-13-AR-9377 vide cover note number 1117003116N100210700 for the period from 03.09.2016 to 02.09.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.48,462/- under Dep. Cap policy. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 25.2.2017 within the revenue estate of village Akbarpur, PS Begowal, District Kapurthala, of which DDR number 19 dated 25.2.2017 was lodged and the intimation of accident was also given to the OP number 2, who appointed the surveyor.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the truck in question was brought to the authorised service station i.e. OP number 2 for repairs, where the same was repaired and an amount of Rs.5,19,079/- was spent, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 2 paid only an amount of Rs.4,25,400/- and withheld the remaining amount of Rs.93,679/- without assigning any reason.  Nothing happened despite approaching the OP number 2 a number of times. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.93,679/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 was proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 2, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OP number 2 under the policy as stated above. It is stated that on receiving the intimation, the OP appointed the surveyor who inspected the vehicle and prepared the estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.4,25,414/-, but the complainant submitted the bill for Rs.5,19,079/- with the OP, which is totally wrong and illegal and the due amount of Rs.4,25,400/- has already been paid to the complainant. It has been denied that the OP number 2 is liable to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.93,679/- to the complainant.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/4 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question for Rs.21,00,000/- with the OP number 2 by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-2 on record.

 

7.                It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 25.02.2017, intimation of which was given to the OP number 2, as such after receipt of the intimation, the OP number 2 immediately appointed surveyor Shri R.K.Bansal, to assess the loss, who submitted his report dated 15.5.2017, Ex.OP2/4 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,25,414/-. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though he spent an amount of Rs.5,19,079/- on the repairs of the truck in question, as is evident from the copy of the invoice on record as Ex.C-1, but the OP number 2 has paid only an amount of Rs.4,25,414/- by withholding an amount of Rs.93,679/-, as the truck in question was got repaired from the authorised dealer of the manufacturer of the vehicle in question.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the policy in question was dep. Cap meaning thereby the whole of the amount of loss was to be paid by the insurer/opposite party number 2.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has contended vehemently that the amount as per the survey report has been fully paid to the complainant and that there is no reason to pay the more amount than the survey report.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for OP number 2. In the present case, it is admitted case of the complainant and OP number 2 that the truck in question was got repaired from the authorised service centre of the manufacturer of the truck, who has issued the bill to the tune of Rs.5,19,079/-, but the OP number 2 has paid only an amount of Rs.4,25,400/-.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 2 that why the OP number 2 withheld the amount of Rs.93,679/- belonging to the complainant at the time of payment of the claim amount, more so when it is settled law that the full amount is payable by the insurer if the vehicle is got repaired from the authorised manufacturer.  In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP number 2 is directed to pay to the complainant the remaining claim amount of Rs.93,679/-.

 

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.93,679/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.08.2017 till realisation. We further order the OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 28, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member