BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.162 of 2016                                                               

                                                           Date of Institution         :    4.7.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   : 21.8.2017.  

Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Ram Kumar, resident of village Suchan Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

            ….Complainant.                     

                   Versus

1. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Dabwali Road, Sirsa (Head Office).

2.  Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302022, INDIA.

                                                                             ..…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh. Virender Kamboj,  Advocate for the complainant.

     Opposite party no.1 given up.

    Sh. H.S.Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

                   Case of complainant, in brief, is that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-62-0873 with the opposite parties on 13.2.2015 after paying premium for the same vide policy number 10003/31/15/567895 which was effective from 13.2.2015 to 12.2.2016. That during the subsistence of the policy in question, his vehicle met with an accident on 19.12.2015 and in this regard he informed the ops on toll free No. 1800-300-30000 upon which the Surveyor of the ops namely Sh. O.P. Madan inspected the vehicle and told to the complainant that he has prepared the complete report and asked him to get repaired the vehicle at his own cost. That an amount of Rs.85,000/- was spent by him on parts and Rs.28,000/- were paid as labour charges and report in this regard was submitted by him to the surveyor. It is further averred that after the repair the surveyor did not get final photos of his vehicle for about 10 days due to which his vehicle remained parked in the garage and he suffered financial loss of Rs.15,000/- due to stoppage of his work. During this period, he made several calls to the surveyor but he did not give any satisfactory reply and now due to grudge he has shown the damages of Rs.32,795/- instead of Rs.1,13,000/- whereas he has spent more amount on it. He has taken an amount of Rs.40,000/- from Shri Ram Finance company and Rs.70,000/- on interest and spent the same on the repair of his vehicle. It is further averred that the ops have not paid full claim amount to him despite insurance of the vehicle and he is unable to repay the debt amount and he also could not pay the installments of the vehicle. He has made repeated requests to the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Opposite party no.1 was given up by learned counsel for the complainant.

3.                On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not produced any proof on file in support of his allegations. The insurance company on the basis of surveyor report has paid an amount of Rs.32,795/- to the complainant and complainant also not raised any objection in this regard. It is further submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was 11 years 1 month old upon which an amount of Rs.57,590/- was spent on metal parts and Rs.9500/- were spent on labour charges and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance company, 50% of the metal parts was to be deducted and as such 50% of the amount of Rs.57,590/- comes to Rs.28,795/- which amount alongwith labour charges of Rs.9500/- i.e. total amount of Rs.32795/- was paid to the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1/A, affidavit of Sh. Kulwant Mechanic as Ex.CW2/A, copy of statement of account Ex.C1, copy of certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C2, copy of document regarding tax paid Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.2 produced copy of motor claims approval sheet Ex.R1, claim settlement check list Ex.R2, copy of surveyor report Ex.R3, Ex.R4, copy of photo of vehicle Ex.R5, again copy of surveyor report Ex.R6, Ex.R7, copy of motor insurance claim form Ex.R8 and copy of certificate cum policy schedule Ex.R9.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                There is no dispute that vehicle in question of the complainant was insured with the opposite party no.2 for the period 13.2.2015 to 12.2.2016. There is also no dispute that said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 19.1.2015 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance. The complainant has alleged that he spent an amount of Rs.85,000/- on account of replacement of parts of the vehicle and Rs.28,000/- on account of labour charges. It is also an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.32,795/- has been deposited in the account of the complainant by the opposite party no.2 being claim amount. To justify the payment of Rs.32,795/- the op no.2 has placed on file survey report wherein amount of Rs.57590/- has been shown as expenses of replacement of metal parts and after depreciation of 50% , the net amount for replacement of metal parts has been shown as Rs.28795/-, labour charges has been shown as Rs.9500/-, Rs.500/- has been deducted as less excess clause and Rs.5000/- has been deducted as salvage. In so far as value of Rs.28795/- for replacement of metal parts after depreciation of 50% as shown by the surveyor is concerned, we are also of the considered view that this amount of Rs.28795/- is just and proper for replacement of metal parts after depreciation of 50% as the complainant has not placed on file any document/ bill to show that he actually spent an amount of Rs.85,000/- on parts. However, in so far as labour charges of Rs.9500/- as assessed by the surveyor is concerned, it may be mentioned that surveyor has not placed on file any bill of labour charges in this regard. On the other hand, the complainant has produced affidavit of one Kulwant Mechanic who in his affidavit has testified that he charged an amount of Rs.28000/- from the complainant on account of labour charges. So the amount of Rs.9500/- as assessed by the surveyor on account of labour charges is not justified and the op no.2 is liable to pay total amount of Rs.28000/- to the complainant after deduction of Rs.9500/- already paid.

7.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.18,500/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                        Presiding Member,

Dated:21.8.2017                      Member.     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.