Punjab

Sangrur

CC/426/2016

Mohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Rohit Jain

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  426

                                                Instituted on:    15.06.2016

                                                Decided on:       22.11.2016

 

Mohan Lal son of Shri Bachan Ram, proprietor of M/s. Goyal Food Industries, Village Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, Distt.Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Thandi Sarak, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

2.             The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Ranbir College Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mohan Lal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant  is the proprietor of M/s. Goyal Food Industries, Village Chhajli and got installed one SORTEX Machine which was purchased from M/s. Mendo Controls, Coimbatore.  It is further stated that the complainant obtained the services of the OPs by getting an electronic equipment insurance policy for Rs.21,90,000/- for the period from 25.9.2015 to 24.9.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.12,558/-. 

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the above said sortex machine gave some problem and stopped working and as such the complainant sent request to M/s. Mendo Controls, Coimbatore to put the same in running condition. Thereafter the mechanic and engineer of M/s. Mendo Controls visited the site  and after repairs put the same in working condition and the complainant paid Rs.1,97,000/- for replacement of the new equipments and Rs.11,450/- on account of labour charges i.e. total Rs.2,08,450/- to M/s. Mendo Controls against invoice number 004 dated 4.4.2016.  Further it is stated that in the second week of May, 2016 the OPs credited an amount of Rs.61,879/- in the account of the complainant on account of insurance claim, whereas the complainant spent an amount of Rs.2,08,450/- meaning thereby the Ops deducted an amount of Rs.1,46,571/-.  Thereafter the complainant sent so many letters to the Ops for the credit of the remaining amount of Rs.1,46,571/- on account of the insurance claim, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,46,571/-  along with interest @ 24% per annum and further the complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs, it is admitted by the OPs that the complainant obtained an electronic equipment insurance policy from OP number 1 for the period from 25.9.2015 to 24.9.2016 subject to the terms and conditions for Rs.21,90,000/-.  It is further stated that after receipt of the intimation dated 8.12.2015 regarding damage of sortex machine, the OPs immediately appointed Er. Pushpinder Kumar Garg, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss, who inspected the machine and assessed the loss payable as Rs.62,888/- after deducting 50% depreciation and Rs.10,000/- regarding policy clause.  The surveyor did not allow 14.3% VAT as the complainant did not submit original bills. It is further stated that only one scanner was damaged, therefore, the surveyor rightly allowed one scanner instead of two claimed by the complainant. Further it is stated that the ejector control unit and valve PCB controller were not damaged, therefore, the surveyor rightly disallowed the same and submitted his report dated 25.1.2016.  It is further stated that the Ops after examining the entire record paid Rs.61,879/- legally in full and final settlement of the claim.  The other allegation levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 copy of invoice dated 4.4.2016, Ex.C-3 copy   of policy, Ex.C-4 copy of collection receipt cum adjustment voucher, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 10.5.2016, Ex.C-6 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-7 copy of account statement, Ex.C-8 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs  has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.Op/2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP/3 copy of letter, Ex.OP/4 copy o survey report,Ex.OP/5 to Ex.OP/8 copies of photographs, Ex.OP/9 copy of quotation, Ex.OP/10 copy of bill dated 9.12.2015, Ex.OP/11 copy of bill dated 9.12.2015, Ex.OP/12 copy of payment voucher, Ex.OP/13 affidavit of Er. Pushpinder Kumar, Ex.OP/14 affidavit of Mewa Singh 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 an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant took an insurance policy for Rs.21,90,000/- for the period from 25.9.2015 to 24.9.2016 for insuring the electronic equipments by paying the requisite premium of Rs.12,558/- as is evident from the copy of insurance policy, which is on record Ex.C-3.  It is further not in dispute between the parties that the sortex machine of the complainant  developed some problem, as such the same was got repaired from M/s. Mendo Controls, Coimbatore on 4.4.2016.

7.             In the present case, the dispute is over the quantum of compensation/loss payable/paid to the complainant by the opposite parties.  The complainant has alleged that he spent an amount of Rs.2,08,450/- on the repairs of the sortex machine in question, whereas the Ops have alleged that the machine suffered a loss of Rs.61,879/- only as assessed by the surveyor and as such this amount of Rs.61,879/- has already been paid to the complainant by the OPs. 

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the amount of Rs.61,879/- has been paid to the complainant in view of the survey report dated 25.1.2016 submitted by Er. Pushpinder Kumar Garg, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-4. Further a bare perusal of it shows that after getting instructions, he visited the insured and inspected the equipment and found that its ejectors, power module etc. had been damaged and he assessed the loss by again inspecting the same during repairs and after repairs.  After carefully perusing the report, we found that the report has been prepared  by the surveyor legally which seems to be without prejudice, but we feel that the surveyor has wrongly deducted the depreciation @ 50% on the allowed parts i.e. Rs.62,888/-, meaning thereby the complainant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,25,776/- on account of parts  and further an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of labour charges and the complainant is also entitled to VAT @ 14.3% on the value of the parts, which comes to Rs.17986/-, the total of all the above amounts comes to Rs.1,53,762/- and after deduction of the policy clause of Rs.10,000/-, the net amount of the claim payable to the complainant comes to Rs.143,762/-. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the Ops did not pay the VAT amount to the complainant even after receipt of the bill, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-10. Further the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence entitling them to deduct the depreciation of 50% on the replaced parts.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.81,883/- (Rs.1,43,762/- minus Rs.61,879/- already paid to the complainant) being the remaining insurance claim amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.6.2016 till its realisation in full.  OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

11.           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.

                November 22,2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member