(As per A.A.Jain, Hon´ble Member)
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite party claiming various relief as per prayer clause :-
The fact of the case is as under:
1. Complainant is owner of truck No. CG-04/ZC-4516 and the said vehicle was insured with O.P. vide cover note No. A/974510 and comprehensive Policy No. 31/2005/8607 and this policy was in force from the period 12-10-04 to 11-10-2005.
2. On or about 6-7 Sept.2005 the abovesaid vehicle met with an accident near Mandla (M.P.). Complainant immediately informed to Regional Manager of O.P. Jabalpur. O.P. send surveyor from Jabalpur to accident spot. Surveyor has done spot survey and took the photograph and directed complainant to take away the vehicle at Amgaon for it’s repairing. Complainant hired the crane and by toeing it from another truck brought the accidental vehicle at Amgaon.
3. Then, second surveyor appointed by O.P. Mr. Polke visited at Amgaon and inspected the accidental truck and he also took photographs etc. and orally directed to complainant to repair the damaged vehicle. Complainant furnished the estimate worth Rs.4,18,320/- to O.P. office at Gondia personally.
4. Complainant has done expenses for repairing his damaged truck Rs.2,48,325/- including crane charges, toeing charges and other repairing charges. Complainant requested to O.P. to pass his claim of expenses of this vehicle. Complainant has submitted all bills of new parts and bills and voucher of repairing charges and labour charges. O.P. has done through his surveyor final survey of vehicleand sanctioned / allowed only Rs. 65690/- and asked complainant to accept the said payment as full and final settlement. The aforesaid amount of claim settlement is not acceptable to the complainant. So he has filed this complaint praying for the direction to O.P. to pay claim amount Rs.2,53,325/- with 9% interest and cost of the complaint case. (Exh.1).
5. In response to notice u/s 13 of C.P.Act 1986 , O.P. appeared and file its reply. (Ex.8). O.P. denied all allegations of complainant, O.p. admitted that they have sanctioned Rs.65690/- on the basis of report of surveyor. The complainant is not entitled for Rs.248325/- as claimed in the petition.
6. O.P. further submitted that there are licenced insurance surveyors approved/ empanelled by insurance regulatory and development authority. They are independent surveyors who are inspecting and assessing the losses as per their technical expenses and use to give their expert opinion to insurance company about the losses. O.P submitted that after spot survey was done by Mr. A.K.Vishvakarma Jabalpur and he has submit his report. Final Survey done by Mr. A.N.Polke of Nagpur O.P. is ready to pay Rs.65690/-.
7. After verifying thoroughly all the records and hearing pleadings of both the sides. The following points arise for our consideration and our finding is given as below :
Points Findings
A) Whether there is deficiency in services on the part of the O.P. Yes
B Whether complainant is entitled for claim as prayed in prayer clause ? Partly entitled
C What order ? As per final order
REASONS
As regards Point No. A : It is apparent from the complaint and written statement that the O.P. took about an year to settle the claim viz. the accident had taken place on or about 6-7 September 2005 and O.P. sent the claim settlement voucher as full and final settlement on dt. 23-08-2006. The complainant did not agree to the aforesaid settlement and made representation to the O.P. for settlement as per his claim. However, O.P. did not pay any heed nor did , they release the amount without any delay. That, because of delay on the part of the O.P. in settling the claim, the complainant has suffered mental torture and financial loss for which he is entitled for compensation. As such we have no hesitatioin to hold that there is deficiency in services on the part of the O.P. and hence, point A is answered in the affirmative.
As regards Point B :Final Survey report was given by SurvyorMr.A.N.Polke. He has allowed only Rs.1,02,157/- on dt. 24-01-2006 Ex.15(1) . Surveyor has allowed spare parts of Rs.1,18,803/- deducting Rs.47521/- towards depreciation @40% due to 9 years old vehicle, thus total of Rs.71282.33 against claim of complainant Rs.2,40,872/- . Surveyor also allowed Rs.33450/- as repairing charges i.e. labour charges. There is no any depreciation in labour charges as per condition of policy. He has allowed rubber parts including battery of Rs.5950/- and 50% depreciation so only Rs.2975/- was allowed and self starter assy. i.e. Rs.450/- . Thus total spare parts allowed Rs.74707/-.
Column 16 : Summary of Assessment :
Total spare parts allowed Rs. 74,707.00
Total labour charges allowed Rs. 33,450.00
Total Rs. 1,08,157.00
Less : Excess Rs. 6,000.00
Net Rs. 1,02,157.00
Cost of salvage Rs. 6,000.00
Net Payable Rs. 96,157.00
8. Surveyeor Mr. A.N.Polke has not allowed crane charges of Rs.5100/- . He has allowed only toeing charges Rs.2500/- . Due to accident front shape and show was heavily damaged (As it was shown in photograph. So accidental vehicle (only front portion) was loaded by crane in the body of another truck and toeing was done. Complainant has submitted bill of Khalsa Crane Services and Agrawal Transporters i.e. Rs.5100/- plus 5000/- . Total Rs.10100/- . less Rs.2500/- allowed difference Rs.7600/- should be allowed.
Thus total claim should be Rs. 96157.00
Diference Rs. 7600.00
Total Rs. 1,03,757.00
So complainant is entitled for claim of his accidental vehicle Rs.1,03,757/-
9. Complainant has submitted estimate of his accidental truck of Rs.4,18,320/- without any base against the total insured value of Rs.4,00,000/- . Complainant has submitted some bills without name of customer, without sales tax no., without serial No., Book No. so some bills of spare parts and repairing are not reliable.
10. Complainant submit one case law (Ex.17) reported II (2003) CPJ 620 Orissa State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Santosh Kumar Raut Appeal No.45 of 1998 decided on 28-02-2003 . In this case appellant has not objected about fake bill in District Forum. In the case in hand O.P. has objected bills being fake and fabricated at the time of argument and also in W.S. Ex.8, Point No. 12 (G) . So this case law is not of any help to the complainant. For the reasons stated supra we allow the complaint partly and pass the order accordingly.
ORDER
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. O. P. is directed to pay Rs.103757/- as the claim of accidental vehicle with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization, within one month.
3. The O.P. are directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental torture and financial loss as claimed in para 7 of the complaint.
4. O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as the cost of complainant within one month.
