Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/112/2012

Walideen S/o.Nazir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Banchal

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                      Complaint No. 112 of 2012.

                                                                                      Date of institution: 31.01.2012

                                                                                      Date of decision: 22.03.2017.

Walideen aged about 38 years son of Nazir, resident of village Ratauli, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.                                   

                                            Versus

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. having its Branch Office Near Raghunath Mandir, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. having its Banch Office Near Raghunath Mandir, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …Respondents.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. S.P.Banchal alongwith Sh. Chetan Parkash Advocate, for complainant.  

               Sh. Ajay Shakti Goyal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

               Respondent No.2 given up vide order dated 03.02.2012.

                                      

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Walideen has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to make the payment of claim amount of Rs. 1,22,695/- alongwith interest on account of damage to the truck/Canter Eicher in a road side accident and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that  the complainant is registered owner of the Canter Eicher bearing registration No. HR-58/7629 which was comprehensively insured with the OP No.1 Insurance Company vide its Policy bearing No. 10003/31/11/565743 valid from 14.03.2011 to 13.03.2012 for a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- The canter of the complainant met with an accident on 04.09.2011 due to which canter of the complainant was badly damaged. After the accident the complainant informed the OP No.1 that the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident and after getting the information of the accident, the surveyor of the OP No.1 came to see the vehicle of complainant, who after taking photographs of the vehicle and after getting the copy of insurance policy alongwith other relevant documents said to the complainant to get repair his vehicle from some mechanic and in this regard the surveyor of complainant further got an estimate of repair from Kapoor Motors Barara Road, Dosharka, Ambala who gave an estimate of Rs. 1,46,200/- to the complainant as well as surveyor of the OP No.1. The surveyor of the OP No.1 assured the complainant that insurance company will pay the bill of the repair/spare parts etc. to the complainant against valid bill. On the assurance of the OP No.1 Insurance Company, the complainant got repaired his canter and spent Rs. 1,22,695/- on the repair of the truck but the OP No.1 Insurance Company refused to pass the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; complaint of the complainant is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of answering OP; This Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as the complainant has already received the claim amount as full and final settlement being satisfied and in this respect the complainant has also issued a claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher under his signature in favour of the OP No.1 Insurance Company, as after duly inspection conducted by the surveyor of the OPs Company, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 66,234/- and the said amount was disbursed to Shriram Transport Finance Co. on the instructions of the complainant. As such, the complainant had received the said amount without any objection, so the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs and on merit controvert the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 4.                    It is pertinent to mention here that OP No. 2 was given up on the statements of parties vide this Forum’s order dated 03.02.2012.

5.                     To prove his case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of cash/credit memo as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Cash/ Credit memo dated 15.01.2012 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 82,200/- issued by Mangla & Sons as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of cash memo issued by Saini Auto Electric Works as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ankur Mathur as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of motor claim approval sheet as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Final Survey Report as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of discharge cum satisfaction voucher as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of claim cost confirmation as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of Certificate Cum Policy Schedule as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 Insurance Company.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP No.1 reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that complainant has spent Rs. 1,22,695/- on the repair of his Canter on account of accident which took place on 04.09.2011 and in this regard complainant intimated to the OP No.1 Insurance Company for settlement of claim. In this way, he was entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,22,695/- from the OP No.1 Insurance Company but the OP No.1 Insurance Company has only paid a sum of Rs. 66,234/- to the Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. which is totally illegal and the OP No.1 Insurance Company is bound to make the remaining payment of Rs. 56,461/- and draw our attention towards the Bills Annexure C-1 to C-4.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 Insurance Company hotly argued that the claims of the complainant have been correctly settled and an amount of Rs. 66,234/-, assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor vide his report Annexure R-R-2, has already been paid to the financer of the complainant and nothing is due against the OP No.1 Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 Insurance Company further argued that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant after receiving the abovesaid amount as full and final settlement. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 Insurance Company further argued that no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to controvert the reports of the surveyor and loss assessor. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

10.                   After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 as the claim of the complainant has been rightly settled by the OP No.1 Insurance Company and amount of Rs. 66,234/- assessed by the Surveyor & Loss Assessor has already been paid as full and final settlement to the financer of complainant. Although, the financer OP No.2 and OP No.1 Insurance Company is sister concern of each other but have separate entity. The contention of the complainant that he has spent Rs. 1,22,695 on repair of the Canter in question is not tenable to our mind as it is settled proposition of the law that credence should be given to the surveyor report in the absence of any discrepancy or ambiguity in the surveyor report. In the present complaint also, the complainant has not pointed out any discrepancy or ambiguity in the Surveyor and Loss Assessors’ report Annexure R-2. Further, the complainant failed to file any report of expert surveyor and loss assessor to prove that the complainant had actually spent of Rs.  1,22,695/- on the repair of Canter in question whereas OP No.1 Insurance Company has filed surveyor report Annexure R-2 from which it is clearly evident that  complainant has suffered the loss to the tune of Rs. 66,234/- and the same has been shown disbursed to the financer OP No.2 of complainant vide discharge voucher Annexure R-3 and R-4 and this fact has been mentioned in affidavit filed by the Op No.1 Insurance Company. Neither the complainant has rebutted this fact that amount of Rs. 66,234/- was not deposited in his loan account nor he bothered to place on file any statement of account to rebut the version of the OPs. Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 Insurance Company.  

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 22.03.2017                       

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.