Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 526.
Instituted on : 28.09.2016.
Decided on : 30.07.2018.
Jain Precision Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.111, New HSIDC, Rohtak through Mr. Ankur Jain s/o Sh. Vijender Jain R/o H.No.522/14, Bhagat Singh Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bahadurgarh situated at Above Eicher Tractor Agency, Near Bus Stand, Bahadurgarh through its Divisional Manager.
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Near Jeewan Eye Hospital above State Bank of Patiala Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Piyush Sharma Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a UPS on 08.01.2013 from Consul Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Chennai vide invoice No.66119 against the total amount of Rs.802250/- and insured the same from the opposite parties under policy no.35380244145800000005. That some problem occurred in UPS in October 2015 and the complainant contacted the company and get quotations. That on 14.10.2015 Surveyor Mr. Jaidka replied the complainant that he may proceed for repairs with any option(Consul Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. or Deep Electric Work) as per satisfaction of the complainant. That on 31.03.2016 complainant got replacement and repairs done from Deep Electric Work against the total amount of Rs.161502/- but only claim amount of Rs.52418/- was disbursed by the company on 02.07.2016 through NEFT into account of the complainant. That complainant requested the opposite parties through email and legal notice to reimburse the remaining claim but to no effect. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to reimburse the remaining claim amount of Rs.109084/- on repairs of UPS beside compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that on receiving the information for claim regarding Electronic Equipment insurance policy of the insured i.e. complainant, the answering respondent took immediate necessary action and appointed Sh.V.K.Jaidka Surveyor and Loss Assessor for survey of the reported loss of the insured and after his survey he submitted his report vide Ref. No.May/06/2016 dated 17.05.2016. The loss assessed by the surveyor amounting to Rs.52418/- was duly paid by the answering opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any claim from the opposite party. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R16 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main point of contention between the parties is that the claim of the complainant has been accepted by the OP partly not in fully. The respondent relied upon Ex.R3 report of Mr. V.K.Jaidka Surveyor and loss assessor on behalf of the company and paid Rs.52418/- against the net adjusted loss/liability of Rs.52418/-. We cannot loose sight of the fact that technician of the respondent company assessed the loss and repair charges at Rs.312235.93P as per invoice dated 23.09.2015 but after concurrence/approval from the respondent company the complainant choose to get the damaged UPS repaired from one M/s Deepak Electrical Works Rohtak and paid Rs.161502/- vide bills Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. The facts of the case reveals that the complainant got his UPS repaired after spending a lesser amount as compared to the Performa invoice/estimate of dated 03.12.2015 generated by the technician of the respondent company. This show the practical and honest working of the complainant. The report of the surveyors/loss assessors are not the gospel truth and are meant for settling the disputed between the parties. Neither the insured nor insurer is bound by such reports. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is duly supported by the genuine bill of repair which has not been assailed with cogent evidence. We also found support from the law relied upon by ld. counsel for the complainant of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Pradeep Kumar decided on 09.04.2009 in civil appeal no.3253 of 2002.
6. As such we allow this complaint and award Rs.161502/- after deducting Rs.52418/- already paid by the respondent and Rs.1000/- as excess clause which comes to Rs.108084/-(Rupees one lac eight thousand eighty four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.09.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal, Member.
