DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.216 of 27-03-2014
Decided on 27-10-2014
Kuldeep Singh aged about 38 years S/o Sham Singh R/o Village Sangha, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa.
........Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda, GT Road, Near Zila Prishad Bathinda, Camps No.2907 GH.
.......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Amandeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite party: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of the vehicle (Pick-up) bearing No.PB-31L-0522, he insured the same vide cover note bearing No.12060661, policy No.0152436935, valid w.e.f. 9.4.2013 to 8.4.2014. On 16.8.2013, the abovesaid vehicle met with an accident and DDR No.19 dated 16.8.2013 has been registered at police station Sardulgarh. The complainant informed regarding the alleged accident to the opposite party, it appointed Sh.P.D Goyal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Bathinda to assess the loss as per the rules. After the loss assessment and getting all the relevant documents the officials of the opposite party asked the complainant to get his vehicle repaired on his costs as the insurance amount would be paid to him later. Replying upon such version the complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending the amount of Rs.65,035/- and submitted the bills and other relevant documents to the opposite party. The opposite party deposited the amount of Rs.27,027/- in the account bearing No.313794227157 of the complainant, but his genuine claim of Rs.65,035/- was not paid to him. The complainant is entitled to get his genuine claim of Rs.65,035/-, but only the amount of Rs.27,027/- has been credited in his account. The complainant has got served a legal notice dated 14.1.2014, but no reply has been given by the opposite party. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.65,035/- after deducting the amount already paid i.e. Rs.27,027/-=Rs.38,008/- alongwith interest from 16.8.2013 till realization besides cost and compensation or to give him any other relief for which he may be found entitled to.
2. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that on receiving the claim intimation from the complainant it was duly registered and an IRDA licensed independent surveyor P.D Goyal was appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor after inspecting the loss assessed the liability of the opposite party to the tune of Rs.30,312/- as per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy after applying the depreciation, salvage etc. In compliance to the policy terms and conditions an amount of Rs.27,027/- was assessed as the liability of the opposite party and accordingly, the said amount was paid to the insured as full and final satisfaction of his claim on 24.12.2013 through bank transfer. The opposite party admitted the policy payment of Rs.27,027/-. The complainant has referred to the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) CPJ 278 (NC) and Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. National Insurance Co., III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC).
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the policy bearing No.0152436935 vide cover note No.12060661, valid w.e.f. 9.4.2013 to 8.4.2014 for his vehicle bearing No.PB-31L-0522. The abovesaid vehicle met with an accident on 16.8.2013 and DDR No.19 dated 16.8.2013 has been registered at police station Sardulgarh. On receiving the intimation from the complainant, the opposite party appointed Sh.P.D Goyal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. The opposite party has only credited the amount of Rs.27,027 in the account bearing No.313794227157 of the complainant.
6. The submission of the complainant is that the surveyor P.D Goyal in his report has not included the expenditure of Rs.5000/- of roof repair mentioned at Sr.No.6 (Allowed in the survey report); expenditure of Rs.5000/- of trolley side repair mentioned at Sr.No.8 (Allowed in the survey report) and has not allowed the expenditure incurred mentioned at Sr. No.12 (Mudguard Golai), Sr.No.15 (Front W/S-glass rubber), Sr. No.16 (Glass Rubber) and Sr.No.18 (Mudguard Indicator) and amount of the said parts has been deducted by the opposite party. The electronic labour is Rs.1500/- and in the survey report it has been assessed to Rs.500/- and paint labour is Rs.18,000/-, but the same has been assessed and given to the tune of Rs.7000/-. Denting expenditure is Rs.20,000/- that has been assessed and given to the tune of Rs.6000/-. As per the version of the opposite party, it came to Rs.13,500/-, but out of the same only the amount of Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.6500/- and Rs.3500/- has been given to the complainant, in this way the opposite party has wrongly made the deductions and surveyor inadvertently treated some parts under the different heads than required as per the abovesaid policy as such after making the minor adjustment the opposite party paid the amount of Rs.27,027/- i.e. Rs.6000/- on account of labour, Rs.3065/- on account of paint and Rs.17,964/- on account of parts, but the insurance policy covers all the risks and damages and opposite party has no right to make any deductions. The surveyor report is not supported by any affidavit of the surveyor.
7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party is that it has already paid the amount of Rs.27,027/- as full and final settlement of the claim to the complainant. The opposite party deputed P.D Goyal as surveyor and loss assessor, he conducted the survey and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.30,312/- after applying the depreciation and other provisions as per the terms and conditions of the policy and IMT vide survey report, Ex.OP1/3. The surveyor inadvertently treated some parts under different heads than required as per the abovesaid policy as such after making the minor adjustment the opposite party paid the amount of Rs.27,027/- i.e. Rs.6000/- on account of labour, Rs.3065/- on account of paint and Rs.17,964/- on account of parts. The adjustments have been duly explained in the affidavit, Ex.OP1/9. No amount is payable to the complainant besides this. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from the unauthorized repairers, not from the authorized service stations.
8. A perusal of survey report, Ex.OP1/3 shows that for the Roof mentioned at Sr.No.6 'repair allowed'; Estimate Rs.5000/-; Trolly Side mentioned at Sr.No.8 'repair allowed'; Estimate Rs.5000/-; Mudgard Golai mentioned at Sr.No.12 'not allowed' worth Rs.500/-; Front W/s Glass Rubber mentioned at Sr.No.15 'not
allowed' worth Rs.500/-; Small Glass Rubber mentioned at Sr.No.16 'not allowed' worth Rs.300/- and Mugard Indicator mentioned at Sr.No.18 'not allowed' worth Rs.100/-. The total amount of the allowed parts becomes Rs.5000/-+Rs.5000/-=Rs.10,000/-. The electrician labour of Rs.1500/- has been reduced to Rs.500/- by the surveyor, the difference of the electrician labour is Rs.1500/- -Rs.500=Rs.1000/-; Paint labour of Rs.18,000/- has been reduced to Rs.7000/- by the surveyor, the difference of the paint labour is Rs.18,000/- - Rs.7000/-= Rs.11,000/- and denting labour including item No.6 roof & item 8 trolly side of Rs.20,000/- has been reduced to Rs.6000/- by the surveyor, the difference of the denting labour including item No.6 roof & item 8 trolly side is Rs.20,000/- - Rs.6000/-=Rs.14,000/-, in this way the total difference of the labour charges becomes Rs.1000/- + Rs.11,000/- + Rs.14,000/-=Rs.26,000/-. The surveyor has not allowed Mudgard Golai mentioned at Sr.No.12; Front W/s Glass Rubber mentioned at Sr.No.15; Small Glass Rubber mentioned at Sr.No.16 and Mugard Indicator mentioned at Sr.No.18 and has not mentioned even a single word in his survey report that why these parts are not allowed, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is difference of Rs.1000/- in calculating the total amount of Rs.30,312/-, whereas the total is Rs.31,312/- of the assessed loss. The difference in labour charges becomes Rs.1000/- + Rs.11,000/- + Rs.14,000/-=Rs.26,000/-. The complainant is not entitled for the roof and trolly side charges as only their repair is allowed and the parts are not replaced. There is difference of Rs.1000/- in calculation by the opposite party, thus the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.27000/- more from the opposite party. Regarding the parts which are not allowed as mentioned at Sr.Nos.12, 15, 16 and 18, the opposite party is directed to assess these parts after applying the depreciation and pay the same to the complainant.
9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.27,000/- alongwith the amount assessed on the above mentioned remaining parts which are not allowed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.27,000/- + the value of other parts since the date of earlier payment done till realization to the complainant.
10. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
27-10-2014
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
