Punjab

StateCommission

FA/604/2013

Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company and another - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh Simble

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                                           First Appeal No.604 of 2013

 

 

                                                Date of Institution: 28.05.2013

                                                Date of Decision : 25.08.2015

 

Sukhdev Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of House No.144/250, Shastri Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                                              …..Appellant/Complainant  

                                      Versus

 

1.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, Head Office, New India Assurance Building 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort,                     Mumbai 400001.

 

2.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, Jalandhar Road,    Batala through its Branch Manager.

 

 

                                                                                                                              … Respondents/Opposite Parties.

   

First Appeal against order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Gurdaspur

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                   :         Sh.G.S Simble, Advocate

          For the respondents              :         Sh. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 15.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurdaspur, accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay 4,69,000/- and further to pay Rs.15,000/-, as composite compensation.  Aggrieved by the order of District Forum dated 15.03.2013, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

2.      The complainant Sukhdev Singh has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that  he got his Hyundai Elentra Car bearing Registration No.PB07N-0909, Engine No.94674, Chasis No.03651 insured with OPs for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, vide cover note no.550787 dated 30.05.2011 to 29.05.2012  by paying premium of Rs.17,577/-. The above-referred insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 26.11.2011 in the area of village Khatib Tehsil Batala and DDR No.20 dated 26.11.2011 was lodged about this matter at police station Qilla Lal Singh Police District Batala. Intimation was given to OPs about this accident by the complainant, whereupon, the OPs appointed M/s S.A Investigating & Consultancy Agency Pathankot, as surveyor, who assessed the loss. The vehicle involved in the accident was taken to M/s United Motors Balala, wherein it was inspected and estimate of the repair was prepared, as Rs.16,97,180/-. The complainant approached the OP No.2 many times for sanctioning the claim, as it was a case of total loss and also requested to pay the godown charges, as the vehicle was lying in the godown of M/s United Motors along with interest. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 08.06.2012  to OPs, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs praying for payment of total value of vehicle, besides Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared  and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that the vehicle of the complainant was 2004 model, which was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, for the insured sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, which insurance had expired on 14/15.05.2011. The concerned Development Officer renewed the insurance by taking pre-inspection report of the vehicle and by taking the proposal from of the complainant with details of the previous insurance. The complainant furnished the market price of the vehicle in the proposal form of Rs.5,00,000/-. The concerned officials had not conducted any enquiry about the market value and considering the value of insurance of Rs.6,00,000/-, as with the other company and issued the renewal policy for Rs.5,00,000/-. On receiving intimation of loss, the OPs deputed Mr. Gagan Modgil an IRDA approved Surveyor, who conducted the spot survey and after the survey of the vehicle at the spot, he submitted his report dated 6.12.2011. Thereafter, OPs deputed another surveyor Mr. V.K. Mehta IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor on 15.12.2011, after inspection of the vehicle. He submitted his report dated 11.02.2012. M/s S.A. Investigating and Consulting Agency was deputed for investigation of the loss, which submitted report dated 09.02.2012. From the investigation report, it transpired that claim of the insured was approved on net of salvage basis for Rs.2,19,000/- , as per the recommendations made by M/s V.K. Mehta Surveyors Pvt. Ltd , as per the following details :-

Market value of the car         =       Rs.2,50,000/-

Less Salvage Value             =       Rs.   30,000/-

Less Excess Clause             =       Rs.     1,000/-

The OPs further averred that there is contractual relationship between the parties. The OPs contested the complaint of the complainant even on merits on the above-referred grounds and prayed for dismissal of the present.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 along with copies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. A.K. Kashyap Senior Divisional Manager of New India Assurance Company/Ops Ex.R-1, affidavit of Mr. Sarav Daman Bhalla of M/s S.A Investigating & Consulting Agency Ex.R-2, affidavit of Mr. V.K. Mehta of M/s V.K. Mehta Surveyors Pvt Ltd. Ex.R-3 along with copies of the documents Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-8. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Gurdaspur partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay sum of RS.4,69,000/- to complainant, besides amount of Rs.15,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Gurdaspur dated 15.03.2013, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The pleading of both the parties have been scrutinized by us with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. The dispute between the parties boils down to this point as to whether the OPs are bound to pay the insured amount of the vehicle of Rs. 5 lac or they are bound to pay value of the vehicle to the complainant. The affidavit of the complainant Sukhdev Singh is Ex.C-1 on the record. This affidavit is verbatim replication of version of the complaint. Ex.C-2 is copy of insurance policy proving that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with OPs for the insured amount of Rs.5 lac for the period from 30.05.2011 to 29,.05.2012. Ex.C-3 is policy terms and conditions. Ex.C-4 is Collection Receipt-cum-Adjustment Voucher. Ex.C-5 is DDR No.20 dated 26.11.2011 lodged by Bikramjit Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh about this accident of car bearing No.PB07 N 0909. Ex.C-6 is receipt for deposit of Rs.500/-. Fire Brigade Services were requisitioned to put out the fire set to the vehicle, vide report Ex.C-7 on the record. Reply sent to M/s S.A Investigating & Consulting Agency by the complainant is Ex.C-8 but it is un-signed. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are postal receipts. Ex.C-11 is estimate of total amount of repair of the vehicle prepared by United Motors is higher than the price of the vehicle. Ex.C-12 is legal notice sent by the complainant to OPs. Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 are postal receipts. Ex.C-15 is registration certificate of the vehicle. Ex.C-16 is driving license of Bikramjit Singh, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident.

7.      OPs relied upon affidavit of Sh.A.K.Kashyap Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R-1 on the record. This affidavit is verbatim reproduction of the written version of the OPs, as embodied in the written statement. Ex.R-2 is affidavit of Mr. Sarav Daman Bhalla of M/s S.A Investigating & Consulting Agency proving the report of Investigating Agency on the record to the effect that people of village Khateeb (place of alleged loss) declined to have seen the vehicle in furno. Ex.R-3 is affidavit of Mr. V.K. Mehta Surveyor on the record. Ex.R-4 is report of Investigating & Consulting Agency. Ex.R-5 is final survey report of V.K Mehta Surveyors Pvt. Ltd is on the record. Ex.R-6 is Motor Spot Report. Ex.R-7 is DDR and Ex.R-8 is policy schedule-cum-certificate of insurance.

8.      From critical evaluation of the above-referred evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we have come to this conclusion that vehicle of the complainant was insured with OPs on the date of its engulfment in the fire. The insured declared value of the vehicle in the policy is Rs.5 lac. The surveyor Sh. V.K. Mehta assessed the loss in his report Ex.R-5 to the extent of Rs.2,19,000/- only on salvage basis. We find from the report of the repair prepared by United Motors that the estimate of the repair of the vehicle was more than its declared price in the insurance. The report prepared by United Motors cannot be ignored altogether by us. The finding of the District Forum was, thus, correct that it was a case of total loss of the vehicle. The OPs have not preferred any cross appeal in this case challenging the finding of the District Forum. The complainant has filed an appeal only for enhancement of the amount. The insured declared value of the vehicle is Rs. 5,00,000/- in the terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum has awarded amount of Rs.4,69,000/- to the complainant, as insured declared value of Rs.5,00,000/-. The less salvage value of Rs.30,000/- and less excess clause of Rs.1000/- have been applied in this case by the OPs. We do not find any legal infirmity therein, in case of total loss of the vehicle. The reimbursement has to be made by the investigator for the insured declared value of the vehicle. We agree with the findings of the District Forum even with regard to quantum of compensation and find no ground to enhance the same in this appeal.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellant and same is hereby dismissed.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                       (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August 25, 2015.                                                                

(ravi)