DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 444 of 24.10.2016
Decided on: 28.2.2018
Manjeet Singh aged 42 years—son of Sh.Hakam Singh, resident of village Chalaila Tehsil and District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & head office 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its General Manager.
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Area manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Amandeep Verma, Advocate,
counsel for complainant.
Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1&2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Manjeet Singh, complainant 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 giving directions to them for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.94993/- the remaining amount of the damages alongwith interest - 18% P.A.;
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and the cost of litigation expenses;
- And also to grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that he is owner of vehicle Toyota Innova bearing registration No.PB-01 A-2544 which was got insured for a sum of Rs.8.95lac from the OP vide policy no.2172 dated 20.5.2015 valid upto 19.5.2016 by depositing the premium of Rs.25000/-.During the subsistence of the policy i.e. in the month of October,2015, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on Sirhind Road Patiala near Gurudwara village Baran and badly damaged. An intimation was given by the complainant about the said accident to the OP no. 2 on the direction of which the complainant got the vehicle repaired from the authorized dealer i.e. Toyota Em Pee Motors Ltd. Plot No.C-154-156,Focal Point, Patiala and spent a sum of Rs.3,79,993/- on the repair of the same and paid by him. He sent the bills of the repair to OP no.2.However, OP No.2 made the payment of Rs.2,85,000/- instead of Rs.3,79,993/- thereby paid less amount of Rs.94993/- to him. He approached OP no.2 for making the payment of the balance amount but it failed to do so. He also got issued a legal notice dated 6.9.2016 upon the OP for the said purpose but to no effect. The failure on the part of the Ops to make the payment of the balance amount to the complainant amounted to deficiency of service on their part which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.
3. On being put to notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as his claim had already been settled and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that Ops had issued Package Policy for the vehicle bearing No.PB-01-A-2544 for the period from 20.5.2015 to 19.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.8.95lac, in favour of the complainant. It is denied that the vehicle had met with an accident in the month of October,2015. Rather the complainant intimated the loss on 3.12.2015 stating that the impugned vehicle met with an accident on 1.12.5 at 9:00 p.m. near village Baran when it was being driven by his paid driver Sh.Jatinder Kumar. On receipt of intimation of loss, the Ops immediately deputed Sh.Arvind Bhalla IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor, Patiala for spot survey and Sh.Ravinder Kumar Goyal approved IRDA surveyor and loss assessor Panchkula for final survey, who in his report dated 18.1.2016 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.284500/-. The said surveyor report was made with the assistance of the complainant who has not challenged the same. The deductions have been made on account of depreciation , excess clause, extra job got gone and scrap value etc. It is further stated that the complainant has received a sum of Rs.284500/- as full and final settlement of his claim. There is thus no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Smt.Kanta Devi, Dy.Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Arvind Bhalla, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh.Harinder Kumar Goyal alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly the duly insured vehicle in question met with an accident.As per the complainant, he got it repaired from the authorized service centre of the OPs and had paid Rs.3,79,993/- but the OPs had paid him Rs.2,85,000/- only. As such the OPs have still to pay to him Rs.94,993/-. On the contrary the stand of the OPs is that it had already paid the claim amount of Rs.2,84,500/-, as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant. The complainant had received the said amount as full and final settlement of his claim.
7. While going through the surveyor report, Ex.OP1, it has been observed by us that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,84,500/-. The said report is well explained & detailed one and the deductions whatsoever have been made as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The said report has not been challenged by the complainant. Since the report has been made & submitted by the duly approved IRDA surveyor, therefore, the same being an important document cannot be brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. The OPs have already paid the amount of Rs.2,84,500/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant. Therefore, the OPs cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and the present complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:28.2.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
