Punjab

Sangrur

CC/3/2018

Raj Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Yogesh Gupta

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                       Complaint No. 003

Instituted on:  02.01.2018

                                                                       Decided on:    15.03.2019

 

Raj Rani wife of Sh. Vijay Garg, resident of Street No.1, Lakhi Colony, Barnala, Punjab.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Regd. & Head Office: New India Assurance Building, 87, MG Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001.

2.     Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office 1:7, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

3.     Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Branch Kotkapura- 151204.

             ….Opposite parties

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate                           

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :      Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.      

 

Quorum

         

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Smt. Raj Rani, 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 availed the services of the Ops by getting insured her vehicle bearing number PB-19J-3171 vide policy number 36070131160300003037 on 13.6.2016 for Rs.7,00,000/-  through its agent Mr. Parveen Singla.  Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle of the complainant in question damaged in an accident on 21.4.2017 near village Chuarmajra, intimation of which was given to the OP number 2. Further the complainant received letter on 26.8.2017 whereby the OPs demanded some documents, which were submitted to the OPs.  Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of M/s. Layman Motor Ludhiana, who prepared the estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.9,02,479/-. The Ops are bound to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of three months, but the Ops failed to settle the claim despite serving of legal notice dated 8.11.2017 upon the Ops.  As such, it is prayed that the Ops are liable to pay to the complainant full insurance claim amount.  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 the claim amount of Rs.7,00,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from 21.7.2017 till realization and further complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is admitted that the car in question is insured with the Ops for the period from 13.6.2016 to 12.6.2017 for Rs.7,00,000/-.  It is admitted further that after receipt of the intimation regarding loss of the car, the OP number 3 immediately deputed R.P. Gupta and Company, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessing the final loss, who inspected the car and estimated the loss of Rs.3,52,000/- and with probable increase of loss on dismantling and addition of Rs.28000/- has been made and thus the total loss has been assessed to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- after deducting depreciation 50% on plastic and 35% on other parts. The surveyor also deducted 30% on painting and also deducted Rs.2000/- regarding policy clause and Rs.4928/- of salvage value as 75% of the IDV of Rs.7,00,000/- comes to Rs.5,25,000/-, it is not a constructive total loss.  The complainant was requested to get the vehicle repaired as the vehicle was fit for repair. It is denied that the vehicle suffered a total loss. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

 

5.                It is admitted fact that the complainant got insured her vehicle number PB-19-J-3171 vide policy number 36070131160300003037 on 13-06-2016 for Rs.7,00,000/- through Mr. Parveen Singla agent of Op no. 3. The vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident on 21-04-2017 during the subsistence of the policy. OP number 3 deputed the surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the final loss and the loss was estimated of Rs.3,80,000/-. Further that during the arguments learned counsel for the complainant contended that the surveyor of the Ops assessed the loss at very lower side, where as the vehicle has suffered total loss in the accident. It was further contended that since the accident took place on 21-4-2017 and since then the vehicle is laying at M/s LayMan Motors Ludhiana and the repairer prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.9,02,479/- where as the vehicle was insured for Rs.7,00,000/- and surveyor of the Ops assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,52,000/- as per the report Ex.Op-5 and requested for the appointment of the second surveyor, so that the truth may come out about the loss of the vehicle. In order to meet the ends of the justice, the second surveyor was appointed by the forum on 11-07-2018 as agreed to by both the parties to assess the actual loss of the vehicle. The appointed surveyor submitted the motor survey report vide its letter dated 04-09-2017. The surveyor in his report has submitted that “the Repairer is ready to repair the vehicle as per the assessment of the previous surveyor.  This is dep. Cap policy and as per policy terms and conditions Dep. Cap (Nil depreciation) is valid only first two claims of same policy. After two claims depreciation is applicable. Insured already intimated two claims in the same policy on dated 7.3.2017 and 8.12.2016, both are settled/paid. Hence it is a third claim, so depreciation is applicable. Further this loss assessed as per the loss at the time of the accident and all particulars regarding loss collected from M/s.R.P Gupta survey report “(The surveyor appointed by the Ops to assess the loss) and  as per the survey report net payable loss assessed/ recommended is Rs.3,80,000/-. The complainant did not rebut the contents of the survey report submitted by the independent surveyor.  From the “sum up” of the survey report under head “Add probable increases of Rs.28,000/-” has been mentioned and no justification in this regard has been furnished by the surveyor. As such, we are of the view that any amount added in the “sum up” of the survey report without any justification should not be allowed and be deducted from the net payable loss assessed/ recommended by the surveyor. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sadeev Singh Sandhu and sons versus United India Insurance Company Limited 1999(2) CPJ 118, National Insurance Company Limited versus Vibgyor Structural Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2007(4) CPJ 110, Sumit Kumar Aggarwal versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012(2) CPJ 73 and Vinit Poonia versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2012(2) CPJ 163, but none of these judgments are straight-away applicable in the present case.  

 

6.             In sequel of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to insurance claim to the tune of Rs.3,52,000/-(Rs.3,80,000/- – Rs.28,000/-) beside that the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days on the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to receive the awarded amount along with the interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of the passing of the order till full realization. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and there after file be consigned to record room.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        March 15, 2019.                                        

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member