DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 317 of 20.8.2019

                                      Decided on: 15.7.2024

Narjit Singh Oberai son of S.Harnam Singh Oberai, resident of House No.5, Gajjan Singh Colony, Near 22 Number Phatak, Patiala, Punjab

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Opposite Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Divisional Manager, Patiala D.O.II(361500)

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OP.

 ORDER

                                      G.S.NAGI,MEMBER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Narjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The New India Assurance Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that  the complainant has been regularly getting the insurance from the OP from the last many years and has lastly insured for the period 18.7.2018 to 17.7.2019  vide insurance cover policy No.36150048180500000072 and paid the premium of Rs.4637/-
3. It is averred that including the other articles complainant has also installed in the house of LC LED SMG 40” UA40D5500RRMXL. That in the month of April,2019 suddenly the panel of the LED got defected and a claim was lodged for the loss incurred by the complainant. OP appointed Er.Rajesh Goel, surveyor and loss Assessor and approached the complainant and demanded some documents which were duly supplied to him except the quotation for new LED of the same type but thereafter the surveyor vide letters dated 13.5.2019 and 26.6.2019 demanded the documents i.e. estimate of repair of captioned CTV, copy of purchase bill of captioned CTV, quotation for the new CTV of the same type which were also supplied to him but of no avail and the OP is delaying the matter unnecessarily. That complainant got served a legal notice upon the OP to replace the LED with new one or to pay the amount equal to the LED as per bill but despite service of notice OP has not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Thus the OP has committed deficiency in service due to which complainant suffered lost of harassment and mental agony and monetary loss. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to get replace the LED with new one or to refund the amount equivalent to cost of LED; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and inconvenience and also to pay Rs.15000/-as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint. In the written statement preliminary objections have been raised that the present is not maintainable as complainant is not interested to get the claim settled as insurance company is ready to settle the claim for a sum of Rs.7213/- as assessed by the surveyor and loss assessor.
5. On merits, it is stated that OP has issued House Holders Insurance policy in favour of the complainant for the period 18.7.2018 to 17.7.2019 covering the risk of fire and allied perils contents excluding jewelry and valuables for Rs.484500/-, burglary, house breaking for Rs.4,84500/-, all risk for jewelry for Rs.370000, breaking down of domestic appliances for Rs.225000/-,TV set, DVD , CD set for Rs.2,18000/- and baggage insurance of Rs.5000/-.
6. It is further stated that on receipt of claim for the damage caused to the panel of the TV in question the OP immediately deputed Sh.Rajesh Kumar Goyal, approved IRDA surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss on 23.4.2019 who immediately contacted the insured on 24.4.2019 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7213 vide his report dated 18.11.2019. The surveyor and Loss assessor contacted the complainant and the repairer of the TV to settle the claim but complainant is not ready and adamant to get a new TV of obsolete model which is not admissible under the terms and conditions of the policy resultantly the surveyor issued two letters dated 13.5.2019 and 26.6.2019. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In evidence, ld.counsel has produced Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of policy, Ex.C2 copy of bill,Ex.C3 copy of letter dated 13.5.2019, Ex.C4 copy of letter dated 26.6.2019,Ex.C5 copy of estimate,Ex.C6 copy of quotation, Ex.C7 copy of legal notice,Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 postal receipts and closed the evidence.
8. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Gurveen Kaur, Sr.Divisional Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Goyal, Surveyor, Exs. OP1 to OP7 documents and closed the evidence.
9. Written arguments on behalf of the OPs have been filed. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The complainant has alleged that he had purchased household insurance policy from the OP which was valid from 18.7.2018 to 17.7.2019 for a consideration of Rs.4637/- as per Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged that he was purchasing the policy regularly for the last many years. As per the policy various household items were covered under fire, burglary, house breaking and other risks as per the policy document. The complainant has alleged that one LED 40" TV set of Samsung make was also covered under the policy which was purchased by him on 1.11.2011 for Rs.50,000/- as per invoice, Ex.C2. The said LED TV set become defective in the month of April/2019 and a claim was then lodged with the OP. Sh.Rajesh Goel surveyor and loss assessor was deputed by the OP for the assessment of the loss and some additional documents as per letter dated 13.5.2019,Ex.C3 were demanded by the surveyor for the settlement of the claim. It is alleged that these documents namely repair estimate,Ex.C5, quotation of new television,Ex.C6 were provided to the surveyor. However, the demand was repeated vide letter dated 26.6.2019 vide Ex.C4. The claim was not settled and the complainant was then forced to serve a legal notice upon the OP, as per Ex.C7.Even then the claim was not settled by the OP and as such the complainant has prayed for the refund of the amount equivalent to the cost of LED alongwith compensation and litigation charges on account of mental agony and harassment.
11. The OP in its written statement and the affidavit, Ex.OPA of Gurveen Kaur, Sr.Divisional Manager has  admitted that the complainant has taken household insurance policy which was valid from 18.7.2018 to 17.7.2019 against which a TV set, DVD and CD set were also covered for the loss of Rs.2,18,000/-. However, it has been denied that the complainant had taken similar policies prior to this period. The OP has agreed that the TV set under dispute was insured with the OP. The OP has submitted that on receipt of the information regarding the damage to the TV set Sh.Rajesh Kumar Goel , Surveyor and loss assessor was duly deputed for the assessment of the loss on 23.4.2019 and  the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.7213/- as per the report dated 18.11.2019 which is Ex.OP1. The OP has submitted that the complainant was contacted by the surveyor and loss assessor for settlement of the claim for Rs.7213/- being the repair charges of the TV set but the complainant was adamant to get the new TV set. The OP has stated that it is ready to settle the claim of the complainant of Rs.7213/- as assessed by the surveyor under the terms and conditions and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
12. Admittedly the complainant has purchased a household insurance policy which was valid from 18.7.2018  to 17.7.2019 as per Ex.C1 and various household articles were covered under the policy on account of fire and allied perils, burglary and breaking and risk for jewellery, breakdown of domestic appliances, TV set, CD  and baggage insurance etc. The 40" LED TV set of Samsung Make was purchased by the complainant as per Ex.C2 on 1.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- got damaged in the month of 4/2019 i.e. after a period of 7 ½ years from the date of the purchase of said TV set. The complaint was duly lodged with the OP and the TV set was inspected by the surveyor and loss assessor. After the assessment of loss the complainant was asked to provide the estimate for the repair of the TV set alongwith a copy of the purchase bill and quotation for the new LED TV set of the same type as per letter dated 13.5.2019,Ex.C3/OP2 and letter dated 26.6.2019,Ex.C4/OP4.The complainant has himself produced estimate dated 13.5.2019 of Dixon Electronics being authorized service centre as per Ex.C5, as per which the cost of repairs/replacement of main PCB has been stated to be Rs.7213/-.The complainant has produced quotation of the 43” LED of the make of Samsung of Jolly Sales Corporation dated 15.7.2019 for the cost of Rs.37,000/-,as per Ex.C6 . As such the cost of 43 inch LED TV set was Rs.37000/- in the year 2019 whereas the complainant had purchased the disputed 40inch LED TV set for Rs.50,000/- on 1.11.2011.As such the cost of new TV set has depreciated by around 25% from the date of purchase of the TV set. The assessment of loss was worked out at Rs.7213/- as per the report of the surveyor and loss assessor dated 18.11.2019,Ex.OP1which was based upon the repair estimate,Ex.C5 submitted by the complainant for repair of the TV set from Dixon Electronics an authorized service centre of the LED TV.
13.  A perusal of the above documents indicates that the 40" Samsung LED has become obsolete and was no more available in the market. The quotation produced by the complainant for 40” LED of similar type LED is for Rs.37000/- only. The complainant has used the disputed LED for about 7½ years. The authorized service centre of Samsung i.e. Dixon Electronics has given the repair estimate of LED of Rs.7213/-.As per this repair estimate the repair of the disputed LED was possible with the replacement of the main PCB by incurring an expenditure of Rs.7213/-i.e. repair charges of the LED. In our opinion OP was justified in asking the complainant  for the repair of the said LED which was refused by the complainant
14. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to settle the claim of the complainant for Rs.7213/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of the damage of the LED set i.e. 4/2019 till the time of the disbursal of the same. No order as to costs and compensation. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.  
15.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                           President