Punjab

Sangrur

CC/147/2015

Sushil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Abhey Kumar Jindal

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    147

                                                Instituted on:      18.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.08.2015

 

Sushil Kumar son of Shri Prem Parkash, aged 56 years, resident of Flat No.2018, Sector 50-C, Victoria Enclave, Chandigarh, presently residing at H.No.34, Sector 15-A,Chandigarh.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Naya Bazar, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

For the complainant    :       Shri Rattan Verma, Adv.

For Opposite party     :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Shri Sushil Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting his car bearing registration number PB-08AX-8233 model 2006 insured from the OP vide policy number 36130231130100000708 for the period from 4.10.2013 to 3.10.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/-.

2.             The case of the complainant is that while on 12.10.2013, he was going from Chandigarh to Delhi for some personal work and when the car reached near village Taraori, a tempo hit his car from the rear side and due to that the car turned towards left side and struck with a three wheeler, as such the chamber of the car was completely damaged and the engine was ceased as no oil was left in the engine chamber. Thereafter the car was towed to M/s. Lucky Motors, Booth Number 35, Sector 48-C Chandigarh by the said repairer for the complete work and charged Rs.3500/- towards the toeing charges. Thereafter the insurance company was immediately informed regarding the accident and Mr. Manoj Kumar Kukreja was deputed as a surveyor by the OP to assess the loss. The complainant submitted all the documents to the Op.   It is further stated that the complainant was surprised to know that on one day i.e. 16.1.2014 the OP credited an amount of Rs.3020/- in his bank account with the ICICI Bank against the claim amount of Rs.44,208/-. Further the Op has not paid anything regarding the toeing charges.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the balance amount of claim i.e. Rs.41,188/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OP, it is admitted that the car in question was insured with the OP for the period from 4.10.2013 to 3.10.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/-, however subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further admitted that after receiving the intimation regarding accident of the car in question, the OP immediately appointed Shri Manoj Kumar Kukreja, surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the loss of Rs.2969/- only after deducting depreciation 40% on metal and 50% on rubber parts and further deducted Rs.2000/- regarding excess clause. However, the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It is denied that the Op is liable to pay anything to the complainant.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copies of estimates by Lucky Motors, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of survey reports, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-17 photographs, Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-26 copies of bills, ExC-27 copy of insurance policy and Ex.C-28 copy of letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3 copy of payment voucher, Ex.OP-4 affidavit and Ex.OP-5 affidavit of Manoj Kumar Kukreja and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the vehicle bearing registration number PB-08-AX-8233 was insured with the OP vide policy, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-1, which is for the period from 4.10.2013 to 3.10.2014. It is further not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 12.10.2013 near village Taraori (Haryana) and was damaged.  The Op after receiving intimation appointed Shri Manoj Kumar Kukreja, surveyor and loss assessor who assessed the loss and submitted his report regarding loss of the vehicle.

 

7.             In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he spent an amount of Rs.44208/- on the repairs of the car in question, but the OP has paid only an amount of Rs.3020/- by crediting the same in his account on 16.01.2014 and thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint claiming the remaining amount of Rs.41,188/-.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has vehemently contended that the complainant has been paid the amount of Rs.3020/- according to the survey report submitted by Shri Manoj Kumar Kukreja, surveyor and loss assessor, who is duly licensed by the IRDA, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4. The complainant has produced on record the copy of estimate Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 which have been issued by M/s. Lucky Motors, but we feel that these documents carry no value as no vehicle number and date has been mentioned on these estimates. Further the complainant has relied upon the copies of the bills dated 17.10.2013 and 18.10.2013, which are on record as Ex.C-19 and Ex.C-20, but these bills are also not helpful to the complainant as even the name of the firm who issued these bills have been mentioned and ass such the same seems to be fake one.  Similarly, Ex.C-21 is the copy of supplementary estimate issued by the Lucky Motors, which is dated 19/24.10.2013 for Rs.12,758/-, but again we feel that the same is not helpful to the case of the complainant.  Ex.C-22 to Ex.C-26 are the copies of the bills which have been rejected by the surveyor of the OP as such the same are also not helpful to the case of the complainant.  On the other hand, it is not in dispute the OP has made the payment to the complainant as per the survey report. The complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that he spent an amount of Rs.44,208/- on the repairs of the car, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has rightly paid the complainant an amount of Rs.3020/- according to the survey report of Shri Manoj Kumar Kukreja.   

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that he also spent an amount of Rs.3500/- as towing charges of the vehicle from Karnal to Chandgiarh and paid such amount to Lucky Crane Service.  No doubt, it is clear that the amount of Rs.3500/- has been paid by the complainant as towing charges.  But, we are unable to allow the amount of Rs.3500/- as according to the standard form for private car package policy, the OP is liable to pay only an amount of Rs.1500/- as is evident from the condition number 3, which is reproduced  as “ In the event of the vehicle being disabled by reason of loss or damage covered under this policy the Company shall bear the reasonable cost of protection and removal to the nearest repairer and redelivery to the insured but not exceeding in all Rs.1500/- in respect of any one accident.”  The OP has mentioning nothing in the written reply that why they did not pay the amount of Rs.1500/- to the complainant towards towing charges. As such, we feel that the same is payable by the OP to the complainant.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/- as towing charges along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 18.03.2015 till realisation. We further direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member