| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC No. 527 of 31-10-2011 Decided on : 27-03-2012
Bhim Sain aged about 45 years S/o Sh. Nathu Ram, R/o Jodhpur Kenchian Talwandi Sabo Road, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo Road, District Bathinda. ... Complainant Versus New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Senior Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Red Cross Complex, The Mall, Bathinda. ..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT 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 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is owner of one Trax Toofan Vehicle No. PB-31E-7094 of Force Motors Limited, Model 2007 and the said vehicle is comprehensively insured with opposite parties vide Insurance Policy No. 36060131100100001739 w.e.f. 3-8-2010 to 02-08-2011. On 23-09-2010 at about 3.30 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident near Link Road Sekhu-Sukhladhi. At that time, the vehicle was being driven by Pritam Singh S/o Visakha Singh R/o Maur Mandi. FIR No. 107 dated 24-09-2010 was registered at P.S. Raman, District Bathinda in this regard. The intimation of loss was given to the opposite parties and they registered the claim vide No. 31/10/193 and deputed the surveyor to conduct survey and assess the loss. The opposite parties asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and accordingly he got it repaired by spending Rs. 1,91,573/-. The copy of the documents i.e. registration certificate, driving licence, insurance certificate, permit and FIR etc., were supplied to the surveyor as per his demand. The surveyor obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank papers/printed forms as well as on the consent letter on the understanding that the total loss would be paid to him. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to make the payment of loss but they did not do so and kept on calling the unnecessary documents which are either not required or had already been supplied to them. The complainant alleged that his claim has not been decided even after expiry of a year although the opposite parties are bound to process and pay the claim within a period of two months. Hence, he has filed the present complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and admitted that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident, the surveyor was appointed who conducted the survey but denied that complainant was asked to get the vehicle repaired. It has been pleaded that claim, if any, was payable subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant was required to provide requisite documents in this regard. Despite repeated reminders, the complainant had failed to deposit the required documents and as such, the claim of the complainant could not be proceeded with. The opposite parties have pleaded that claim has already been settled vide letter dated 18-10-2011 of the opposite parties vide which two claim cheques amounting to Rs. 5,150/- and Rs. 62,728/- had been issued to the complainant towards full and final payment of the claim amount. The claim has been settled on the basis of report of surveyor and after deducting the salvage value. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after the accident of the car in question, it was surveyed by Sh. R P Gupta & Company, surveyor and loss assessor. The complainant on the directions of the surveyor as well as of the opposite parties, got the car repaired and spent Rs. 1,91,573/- but the opposite parties did not pay the claim till the filing of this complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite parties delivered two cheques dated 18-10-2011 and 12-10-2011 to the complainant amounting to Rs. 62,728/- and Rs. 5180/- respectively, which the complainant received on 3-11 2011 vide Ex. C-26, under protest. He submitted that complainant has spent Rs. 1,91,573/- whereas only Rs. 67,908/- has been paid by the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the remaining amount of his claim. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that despite repeated reminders, the complainant has not submitted the required documents and if any delay has taken place in the payment of the claim, i.e. due to the fault of the complainant. However, so far as the amount so paid to the complainant is concerned, that has been paid as per assessment made by the final surveyor vide his report Ex. C-31. A perusal of file reveals that the car in question met with an accident on 23-09-2010 and thereafter the opposite parties kept on investigating the matter on different aspects unnecessarily till the filing of the complaint by the complainant and as soon as the complainant filed complaint before this Forum, they closed their all investigations and paid aforesaid two cheques to the complainant which he received under protest. Ex. C-31 is the Final & Re-inspection report of Sh. R P Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor. The Summary of assessment made by the said surveyor in his said report at page 2 reads as under :- Original Estimate Assessed for Total Labour charges Rs. 70,050/- Rs. 35,100/- Total cost of parts Rs. 1,83,097/- Rs. 51,349.02 Approx. Total Rs. 2,53,147.58 Rs. 86,449.02 Less Depreciation 25% on metalic parts Rs. 10,197.75 30% on Fibre parts Rs. - 50% on rubber parts Rs. 3,314.60 Total Dep. Rs. 13,512.35 Less Excess Clause Rs. 8,239.49 Less salvage value Rs. 1,897.18 Approx Net loss Rs. 62,800.00 At the end of the said report, the total loss assessment made by the said surveyor speaks something else which is reproduced hereunder :- Total Loss assessed (A+B+C+D+E) Rs. 22,357.72 32,600.00 1,000.00 7,739.49 1,500.00 --------------------- 65,197.21 Less Excess Clause 500.00 ----------------------- Rs. 64,697.21
----------------------- (The value of salvage has been assessed as Rs. 1897.21) As discussed above, the opposite parties have paid two cheques to the complainant totaling to Rs. 67,878/- allegedly full and final payment of the claim of the complainant. As detailed above, the survey report, reproduced above, does not clear the position as which is the net assessment of loss and on what basis the opposite parties have paid Rs. 67,878/- to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1,91,573/-. A perusal of survey report also reveals that the complainant has submitted the estimate for parts to the tune of Rs. 1,83,097.58 and for labour to the tune of Rs. 70,050/- whereas only Rs. 67,878/- has been paid to him against the said loss. A perusal survey report produced on file by the opposite parties reveals that it is not clear that what amount actually has been assessed by the surveyor. Moreover, the said surveyor has mentioned against most of the parts as N.A. and also allowed 50% labour charges. But, no reason has been given by him for disallowing such parts and reducing the labour to such an extent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 2002 decided on 09-04-2009 in the case titled New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar has observed in para No. 15 that :- “.....but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not the sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.” Keeping in view the facts, circumstances, evidence placed on file by the parties and the survey report which is showing two contradictory assessment, this Forum is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is allowed some compensation in lump-sum which will include the loss suffered by him. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/- The opposite parties are directed pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant which includes the loss suffered by him in all respects. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record.
Pronounced 27-03-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur ) Member
| |
