Haryana

Kaithal

CC/79/2023

Sh. Jogi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Universal Sompo GIC etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Ashutosh Sharma

15 Feb 2024

ORDER

                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           79 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:    03.04.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:       15.02.2024.

 

Jogi Ram s/o Shri Mukundi Lal, r/o main Bazaar, Ward No.5, Nirmal Mohalla, Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. The Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCF-55, 3^rd Floor, Sector-6, Main Market, Karnal-132001.
2. Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager, 76-77, NH-65, Ambala Road, Kaithal-136027.

...Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT:

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he purchased a package policy through OP No.2 from OP No.1 for his car bearing Registration No.HR-83-5210, vide policy No.2311/68035357/00/000 valid from 04.09.2022 to 03.09.2023. That unfortunately, on 16.12.2022, the said car was met with an accident at village Kharak Pandwa and information in this regard has been sent to OP No.1 on the same day. That surveyor conducted the survey and given his report, but the OPs paid only part payment of the bill. That he made various requests to the OPs to release the balance claim amount of Rs.69929/-, but they failed to pay the same. The above act of OPs, of not paying his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OP No.1 appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement, whereas, OP No.2 failed to appear before this Commission, on the date fixed i.e. 25.05.2023, despite receipt of notice, from this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte, by this Commission, on that date.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement admitting about issuing the policy in question to the complainant. It is stated that as per claim documents, Mr. Deepak (son of complainant) was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident and as per their version, suddenly a stray animal came in front of the vehicle, due to which, the vehicle hit with the bridge and damaged. That OP No.1 appointed a surveyor, who submitted his report dated 16.12.2022 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.38697.86, as such, Rs.38071/- has been paid to OP No.1 on 02.02.2023 vide NEFT BARBD23033312069 as full and final payment. Hence, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C16.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.1, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1, Annexure R-2.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a package policy through OP No.2 from OP No.1 for his car bearing Registration No.HR-83-5210. He further argued that unfortunately, on 16.12.2022, the said car was met with an accident at village Kharak Pandwa and information in this regard has been sent to OP No.1 on the same day. He further argued that the complainant spent total Rs.1,08,000/- on the repair of said vehicle, but contrary to it, OP No.1 paid only part payment of Rs.38071/- and refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.69,929/-, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus N.  T. Babu, Revision Petition No.2868 of 2013, DOD 01.05.2014 (From the order dated 22.01.2013 in First Appeal No. 330/2012 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram) (NC).

 

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has admitted about insurance of vehicle in question with OP No.1. He argued that after the accident, OP deputed a surveyor, who submitted his report dated 16.12.2022 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.38697.86, as such, Rs.38071/- has been paid to OP No.1 on 02.02.2023 vide NEFT BARBD23033312069 as full and final payment. Hence, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

10.              There is no dispute that the complainant is the registered owner of car bearing Registration No.HR-83-5210, which was insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.2311/68035357/00/000 valid from 04.09.2022 to 03.09.2023 with IDV of Rs.4,14,265/-, as is evident from Registration Certificate and Policy document Annexure C-13. The said vehicle was met with an accident and the complainant informed the OPs in this regard and OP No.1 appointed a surveyor, who submitted his report Annexure R-2, assessing the Net Claim Amount to the tune of Rs.38,697/-, which has been paid, by OP No.1, to the complainant, on 13.02.2023, after deducting Rs.625.71 as TDS i.e. Rs.38071/- to the complainant, which has been admitted, by the complainant, vide Account Ledger Inquiry Annexure C-16.

11.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for the complainant has mainly submitted that the complainant spent total Rs.1,08,000/-, on the repair of damaged vehicle in question and produced bill of said amount of Rs.1,08,000/- as Annexure C-9 to C-12 respectively, on the case file, which was issued by Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kaithal i.e. Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Suzuki, who is make/manufacturer of the vehicle in question, as such, the complainant is entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, from the OP No.1, instead of amount, as assessed by the surveyor, in the case in hand. In order to support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus N. T. Babu (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “We have perused the photographs available on file produced by the Complainant and the report of the surveyor, which shows that entire stock had been damaged in rain, hence the value of the total articles comes to Rs.3,44,016.50/-. It is surprising to note as to, how the OP arrived at the conclusion that the admissible claim is Rs.40,765/- only. It is a meager amount and is not acceptable. The Surveyor report is not a final word, we place reliance upon the following authorities: a.  National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Giriraj Proteins IV (2012) CPJ 151 (NC). b.  Mahinder Bansal vs. UHBVNL IV (2012) CPJ 154 (NC). c.  Noor  Ali Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 565. d.  Nifty Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 566. The case of complainant is squarely covered under this authority.

12.              So, keeping in view the ratio of the law, laid down by the superior For a, in the aforesaid case, produced by the complainant, and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that OP No.1 is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- (vide Annexure C-9 to C-12 respectively), to the complainant, but OP No.1 paid only part payment of Rs.38071/- to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Hence, OP No.1 is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.69,929/- (Rs.1,08,000/- - Rs.38,071/-) to along with compensation and litigation expenses, to the complainant. So far as, the complaint filed against OP No.2 is concerned; it may be stated here that neither any specific allegations have been leveled, by the complainant, against it, nor the same has been proved, therefore, complaint qua OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

13.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.1 and dismiss the same against OP No.2. We direct OP No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.69,929/- along with compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant. OP No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @6% per annum, from the date of this order, till its realization.

14.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:15.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Lal, Stenographer.