BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.88 of 2017.
Date of Instt.:19.04.2017.
Date of Decision:20 .12 .2017.
Vikram Sharma son of Yog Raj, resident of village Bhattu Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sirsa, Tehsil & District Sirsa through its Divisional Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
..Respondents/OPs
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh.N.D.Mittal, Adv. for the OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the OPs with the averments that he got insured his Eicher Canter / Eicher Galaxy (Trala) bearing registration No.HR-62-8780 with the OPs vide insurance policy No.35370031150100004239 valid from 15.07.2015 to 14.07.2016. The complainant also made a payment of insurance premium amount of Rs.33,086/- to the OPs and the said vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.12,70,000/-. Therefore the complainant is consumer of the OPs as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that the damages were caused to the said vehicle on account of an accident and the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.3 lacs on the repair and denting/painting of the same. Accordingly the complainant submitted before the OPs all the bills of Rs.2,84,150/- and the OPs assured him that the said amount shall be released to him very soon. However, against the bills of Rs.2,84,150/- the OPs released the complainant only an amount of Rs.48,100/-. Therefore a legal notice was served to the OPs by the complainant through his counsel on 09.02.2017 calling upon the OPs to release the complainant the remaining payment of the bills submitted by him, but all in vain.
3. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and he is entitled for getting a total amount of Rs.2,84,150/- along-with compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Hence, the present complaint.
4. On being served, the OPs appeared and resisted the complainant by filing a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi, maintainability, estoppal and cause of action, have been raised.
5. On merits, it is submitted that after receiving the information regarding the loss the OPs deputed Sh.Mohit Chugh (Automobile Engineer) an independent surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the accidental vehicle and to assess the loss suffered by it. Sh.Mohit Chug conducted final survey and assessed the total labour charges as Rs.41,000/-, total cost of spare parts as Rs.6,350/- and toeing charges as Rs.2,500/-. So total amount as assessed by the surveyor was Rs.49,850/- and after making deductions the net payable amount was assessed by surveyor as Rs.48,100/-. It is further submitted that the said amount has already been paid to the complainant on 10.01.2017 vide Cheque No.6686 dated 10.01.2017 through NEFT. The payment of the assessed amount was accepted by the complainant as full and final settlement of his claim without lodging any protest.
6. It is also further submitted that the surveyor before submitting his report had made it clear to the complainant that the load body of his vehicle was steel fabricated and the company will pay if the said steel fabricated is repaired but in case the insured decides to change the body of wooden fabricated body in place of steel fabricated body, then the insured shall have to do so at his own cost. A letter dated 27.07.2016 to this effect was written by the surveyor to the complainant. It is further submitted that since the assessed amount of the cost of repair has been paid and received and accepted by the complainant as such there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In evidence both the parties produced affidavits and documents in support of their respective contention.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further contended that an amount of about 3 lacs was spent by him for repair, denting and painting of the insured vehicle and submitted a bill of Rs.2,84,150/- to the OPs for making payment. However the OPs only released an amount of Rs.48,100/- without assigning any reason for not releasing the remaining amount spent by him whereas the OPs being insurer were legally bound to indemnify the complainant by making him payment of the entire bills amount spent by him. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the above said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore the complainant is entitled for getting the payment of entire bills amounting to Rs.2,84,150/- less Rs.48,100/- which has already been released in his favour along-with compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment undergone by him.
9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the OPs rebutted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and further vehemently contended that the independent surveyor and loss assessor had assessed the loss suffered by the vehicle in question amounting to Rs.48,100/-. The loss as assessed by the independent surveyor has already been paid to the complainant on 10.01.2017 vide a bank cheque through NEFT. The said payment has been accepted by the complainant as full and final settlement of his claim and he did not lodge any protest with the OPs. Therefore payment for the loss suffered by the vehicle in question has been made to the complainant perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the present complaint is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal.
10. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have also examined the entire material placed on record. We are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. It is the case of the complainant that he had spent more than Rs.3 lacs for repair, painting and denting of the insured vehicle. However in support of the above contention the complainant has failed to produce any cogent, convincing and credible evidence. Documents Annexure C5 to Annexure C11 are not the bills regarding payments rather the same are estimates issued by different work-shops. Moreover the workshop from whom estimates have been taken are not approved or authorized Therefore on the basis of above said documents it cannot be established that an amount of Rs.3 lacs has been spent by the complainant on the repair, denting and painting of the vehicle in question. On the other hand the independent surveyor/ loss assessor after inspecting the accidental vehicle has assessed the net payable amount as Rs.48,100/-. It is a settled proposition of law that the report of surveyor is a credible document which must be relied upon unless controverted by credible proof of any infirmity in the findings of the surveyor. It is also settled law that Claim is to be allowed on the basis of survey report alone. Complainant is under an obligation to file document to rebut the survey report otherwise survey report being an authentic document has to be relied. Reliance is placed on the judgment titled as “Chananpreet Singh Vs. United India Insurance Company and Ors” cited as 2012(1) CPJ 333 (NC) and judgment cited as 2014(1) CPJ 87 (NC). In the present case the complainant has not been able to lead any evidence to controvert the findings of the surveyor. Moreover the surveyor vide letter dated 27.07.2016 (Annexure R3) had made it clear to the complainant that the load body of his vehicle was steel fabricated and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the insurer is liable to get the vehicle repaired and bring it back to the pre accidental condition and the insured will pay for that only subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If, the complainant decides to change it to some other form i.e. wood fabricated body he will have to do it on his own cost and insurer liability will be only for repair of steel fabricated body. However the complainant did not file any response to the above said letter. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the surveyor has assessed the loss as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question.
11. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessed amount of Rs.48,100/- was paid to the complainant on 10.01.2017 vide a bank cheque through NEFT. However no protest or objections with the OPs was raised by the complainant. From the same it can be inferred that the complainant had accepted the amount as full and final settlement of his claim.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion the present complainant is without any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as provided under the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM. Dt.20.12.2017
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal) (Raghbir Singh)
Member Member President
DCDRF, Fatehabad
