Haryana

Karnal

19/2013

Ajaib Singh S/o Sher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company., Shriram General Insurance Company., Manmeet Singh Makkar, Surv - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.N. Bansal

17 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.19 of 2013

                                                            Date of Instt. 10.01.2013

                                                            Date of decision: 4.03.2015

 

Ajaib Singh son of Shri Sher Singh c/o Vikas chopra residentof 422/7, Krishan Nagar, Tehsil Camp, Panipat.

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.Shriram General Insurance Limited, 10004-E-8, RIICO Industrial Area Sitapur Jaipur Rajasthan – 302022, through its Branch Manager, M/s Shriram General Insurance Limited, GT Road, Opposite Karnal Truck Union, Karnal.

 

2. Branch Manager, M/s Shriram General Insurance  Limited, GT Road, Opposite Karnal Truck Union, Karnal.

 

3.Manmeet Singh Makkar, Surveyor C/o Branch Manager, M/s Shriram General Insurance Limited, GT Road, opposite Karnal truck Union, Karnal.

.

                                                                   …..OPsposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before            Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                        Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma       ……Member.

 

Argued by:-              Sh.H.N.Bansal   Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Vineet Rathore   Advocate for the Ops 1 and 2.

                        OP no.3 ex parte.

 ORDER

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that  complainant  is registered owner of the truck bearing  registration No. HR-65-5574, Engine No. ABP105438,  and he got the same insured from the OPs w.e.f.  24.3.2012 to 23.3.2013 vide cover note No. JPR- 3222954 and the said truck met with an accident on  2.05.2012  and he reported the matter to the OPs and the company appointed surveyor  and the OPs approved the claim to the extent of Rs.35900/- in a whimsical manner without  disclosing as to how the claim has been calculated despite the fact that the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.1,25,790/- on the repairs of the said vehicle.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in services on their part and has prayed that the OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.1,25,790/- alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents.

 

2.                 On notice the OPs  1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections  that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the present complaint was bad for  non joinder and mis joinder of  proper and necessary parties etc.

 

                   On merits, it was  contended that that the claim of the complainant has been rightly  assessed to the tune of Rs.35,900/- vide surveyor report  and as such the said surveyor report was binding upon the complainant. It was thus contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

3.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that complainant  was registered owner of the truck bearing  registration No. HR-65-5574, engine No. ABP105438, vide registration certificate Ex.C1 and he got the same insured from the OPs w.e.f.  24.3.2012 to 23.3.2013 vide insurance policy  Ex.C2 and Ex.C3  and the said truck met with an accident on  2.05.2012  and he reported the matter to the OPs and the company appointed surveyor  and the OPs approved the claim to the extent of Rs.35900/- in a whimsical manner without  disclosing as to how the claim has been calculated despite the fact that the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.1,25,790/- vide Ex.C4 to Ex.C7  on the repairs of the said vehicle. The complainant has also claimed compensation on account of harassment caused to him. but the claim was repudiated.

 

                    However, on the other hand it was argued that the claim of the complainant has been rightly  assessed to the tune of Rs.35,900/- vide surveyor report Ex.OP1/D and as such the said surveyor report was binding upon the complainant.

 

5.                 Faced with the arguments of the OPs, the complainant has argued that report of the surveyor was not a sacrosanct   document and report was liable to be set aside because the surveyor has not mentioned in the report as to on what basis he has quantified the damages in his report. There is no explanation as to how he come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.1750/- was payable against the sum of Rs.38750/-. There is no explanation as to how the labour charges of Rs.6000/- has been calculated as against Rs.17000/- and sum of Rs.30,000/- has been assessed as against Rs.61000/-. It was also argued that total labour charges has been wrongly calculated Rs.36,000/- as against Rs.91500/- and  as such report of surveyor itself was vague and was liable to be set aside in view of the law laid down in case  Virendra Singh Rathor Vs. RM, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.  Appeal No.2494/SC  of  1998 , decided on 2.8.2000.

 

                    It was also pointed out that as per surveyor report Ex.OP1/E,  which was prepared at the spot, the vehicle was badly damaged and the observation made in the spot survey report has not been considered by the subsequent surveyor in his report Ex.OP1/D and thus  the complainant was entitled to the actual bills placed on the file.

 

                    However, as per evidence  of the OPs, the surveyor had  inspected the damaged vehicle and had assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.35,900/- as shown in the surveyor report Ex.OP1/D and the same has rightly been assessed and the complaint be dismissed.

 

6.                 However, the argument of the OPs regarding assessment of the loss to the extent of Rs.35900/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No doubt it  settled law that surveyor report has got evidentiary value in order to assess the loss but if the surveyor has hot considered the material facts and has not  explained as to how he has assessed the loss, then surveyor report is liable to be discarded. In the instant case, the surveyor   had visited the spot of accident and he  submitted the spot survey report Ex.OP1/E. Thereafter the insurance company appointed second surveyor to give final report Ex.OP1/D, who has assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.35900/-. There is no basis in the final report  Ex.OP1/D in order to come to the conclusion as to how the amount of Rs.1750/- has been approved as against Rs.38750/-. Similarly, there is no basis as to how the total labour charges has been calculated to the extent of Rs.36000/- as against Rs.91500/-.

                 It is pertinent to mention here that in the spot survey report Ex.OP1/E,  surveyor has mentioned several damages in the said report but the said damages have not been considered by  the subsequent surveyor who submitted the final report Ex.OP1/D. Therefore, the surveyor report vide which a sum of Rs.35900/-  has been shown as damages as  against Rs.1,30,290/-  cannot be accepted to be true.  The  complainant has given the details of all the expenses incurred by him in getting the said accidented vehicle repaired to the extent of  Rs.1,25,790/- and has also submitted the bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C7.

7.                   Therefore, keeping in view the circumstances of the case we hold that assessment of the loss to the extent of Rs.35,900/- was  whimsical  and not sustainable in the eyes of law  rather we hold that the complainant was entitled to be reimbursed to the extent of  Rs.1,25,790/- subject to  admissible depreciation as per law alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.1.2013 till its actual realization.  The complainant is also held liable to Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The present complaint is accepted accordingly. The OP No.1 and 2  shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 04.03.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Argued by:-              Sh.H.N.Bansal   Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Vineet Rathore   Advocate for the OP No.1 and 2.

                        OP No.3 ex parte.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 4.3.2015.

 

Announced
dated: 03.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Argued by:-              Sh.H.N.Bansal   Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Vineet Rathore   Advocate for the OP 1 and 2.

                        OP NO.3 ex parte.

 

                    Arguments heard.   Vide our separate judgment of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 04.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                             Member.