Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/18

Manoj Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance comany Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil,Adv.

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                       Consumer Complaint No. : 18 of 30.03.2016

                                                 Date of decision                  : 27.09.2016

 

Manoj Bhalla, aged about 42 years, son of Sh. Kailash Chand Bhalla, resident of VPO Bharatgarh, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                                                       ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at 15^th floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Managing Director. 

 2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited having its branch office at Village Chhoti Gandhon, NH-21, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Branch Manager.

3. Raj Motors, Village Chhoti Gandhon, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Managing Director.        

                                                                                       ....Opposite Parties

 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                              MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil Advocate counsel for the complainant

Sh. Varun Soni, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                    

          Sh. Manoj Bhalla has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)        To pay Rs. 2,63,971/- to the complainant,

ii)       To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him,

 

iii)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses,

 

 

2.                         In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 31.7.2014, he purchased Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle bearing registration No.PB-12-T-8141, Engine No.HJD4F18701 and Chassie No. MA1YT2HJUD6F18652 from O.P. No.3. His vehicle was duly insured with the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 vide policy No.0152594574 for the period from 31.7.2013 to 30.7.2014, for a sum of Rs.13,61,971/-. On 2.6.2014, his vehicle met with an accident in the area of police station Ambala, Saha. District Ambala. His vehicle was badly damaged in the said accident and it was a total loss. He immediately informed about the said accident to the O.Ps. He lodged the claim with the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 for payment of claim amount of Rs.13,61,971/-, as it was a total loss. But the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 had paid only an amount of Rs.10,98,000/- and have not paid the remaining amount of Rs.2,63,971/- to him till date despite of his repeated requests and visits. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. filed written version taking preliminary objections; that this Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, as there is no branch office of the answering O.P. situated within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum; that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps.; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it is stated that on receiving the intimation from the complainant regarding the damage of Mahindra XUV No.PB-12-T-8141 in the accident, the answering O.Ps. immediately appointed Vikas Kohli, an independent IRDA licensed Surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the spot survey, who conducted the sport survey of damaged vehicle and submitted his report to the answering O.Ps. on 10.6.2014. Thereafter the answering O.Ps. appointed another independent IRDA licensed Surveyor, M/s B & S insurance Surveyors and loss assessors to conduct the final survey, who assessed the loss resulting from present accident to the tune of Rs.9,72,476/-, which was more than 75% of IDV of the vehicle (Rs.12,93,872/-). As per terms and conditions of the policy, the vehicle was treated as total loss. The complainant agreed to settle the claim on net of salvage basis for Rs.6,48,000/-, and was ready to retain the damaged vehicle (salvage) with him and the wreck value of the damaged vehicle which was evaluated at Rs.6,43,000/- through IRDA licensed surveyor. The complainant gave his consent to the same vide affidavit dated 16.7.2014; that on the basis of report of the surveyor and consent from the complainant, the answering O.Ps. paid an amount of Rs.6,48,000/- to the financer of the complainant, Canara Bank vide cheque No.275303 dated 11.8.2014. The complainant has therefore received a sum of Rs.12,91,000/- being the amount paid to his financer plus the value of the damaged vehicle, as such, the present claim stands paid in full and final satisfaction. As per Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, in case of any loss, the IRDA licensed independent surveyor is to be appointed and the loss payable would be as per the assessment of the said surveyor. Hence, settling the claim on the basis of Surveyor’s assessment cannot be termed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice but the same is done in due compliance of the law.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs.

 

4.                 The notice of the complaint was given to O.P. No.3, but due to non appearance, the O.P. No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.5.2016 . 

 5.               On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 & 2  tendered affidavit of Sh. Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Head Claim North Zone Ex.OP1/A, photocopies of documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/K and closed the evidence.  

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone          through the record of the file, carefully.

7.                From the certificate of insurance and policy schedule Ex.OP1/K, it is evident that vehicle in question was duly insured with the O.Ps. No1 & 2, for the period from 31.7.2013 to 30.07.2014, having IDV of Rs.12,93,872/-. The vehicle met with an accident on 02.06.2014. As the cost of repair of the said vehicle was more than 75% of the IDV, thus, it was declared as total loss and O.Ps. No.1 & 2 were ready to pay the net IDV after deducting of Rs.2000/- as less clause. As per the O.Ps. No.1 & 2, the wreck value of the said vehicle was evaluated at Rs.6,43,000/- by the surveyor and the complainant agreed to keep the said vehicle with him as is evident from Consent Letter Net of Salvage Value, Ex.OP1/C. After deducting Rs.6,43,000/- i.e. salvage value and Rs. 2000/- i.e. less clause from Rs.12,93,872/- i.e. the IDV of the vehicle, the net liability was of Rs.6,48,872/- (Rs.6,48,000 round of). Accordingly, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 have paid an amount of Rs.6,48,000/-vide cheque No.275303 dated 11.08.2014 to the Canara Bank i.e. the financer of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant issued the discharge voucher, Ex.OP1/H, in favour of the insurance company.

                   From the perusal of consent letter-Net of Salvage Ex.OP1/C, it is evident that the complainant agreed to keep the salvage worth Rs.6,43,000/- and agreed to accept Rs.6,48,000/- as full and final settlement on net of salvage basis and thereafter, issued a discharge voucher in favour of the insurance company. As per material available on record, the complainant has accepted the amount offered by O.Ps. No.1 & 2 without any protest. Once, final settlement of claim was accepted by the complainant without any protest, then he has no occasion to file the present complaint against the O.Ps. No.1 & 2, thus, the same is liable to be dismissed. In the case of Eggro Paper Moulds Limited Vs New India Assurance Company Limited, Vol. I 2016 CPJ 404 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that Matter finally stands settled between parties and Commission has no power of interfere with that settlement. Even the complaint filed against O.P. No.3 is also liable to be dismissed because nothing has been alleged by the complainant against it.  

8.                          In this view of the matter, we dismissed the complaint against the O.Ps. being devoid of merits, however, with no order as to costs.                

9.                          The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.  

 

ANNOUNCED                                            (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 27.09.2016                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                             (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER.