DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 331 of 8.12.2008 Decided on : 14.5.2009 <br /> <br /> 1. Anoop Bansal, Proprietor of M/s. PMP Marketing Enterprises, 166, Veer Colony, Bathinda.<br /> 2. M/s. PMP Marketing Enterprises, 188, Veer Colony, Bathinda through its Proprietor Anoop Bansal. <br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 2.The Oriental Insurance C. Ltd., Regional Office, Surendra Building, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. <br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. George, President <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. K.K Vinocha, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant Anoop Bansal filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short called the 'Act') with the assertions that he is owner of Maruti Car No. PB-03L-0188 which was insured with the opposite parties vide cover note No. CHD-C/29869 for the period from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007 as per policy No. 29869 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- against the payment of the premium of Rs. 3,251/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 24.11.2007. The opposite parties were informed and they appointed Sh. Rajpaul Singhal and M/s. G.S Associates for conducting spot survey. Sh. Gurjinder Singh Surveyor of M/s. G.S Associates filed his report with the opposite parties on 5.3.2008 wherein it was clarified that the car was beyond repair and require complete replacement. The estimate was for Rs.1,25,738/-. complainants approached the opposite parties to do the needful. However, opposite parties continued to ask the complainants to get the vehicle repaired despite the fact that as per the report of the Surveyor, the vehicle was non-repairable and it was a total loss. The cost of the repair was exceeding the insured amount. The complainant preferred his claim with the opposite parties and also submitted all necessary documents for honouring his claim. The complainants continued to approach the opposite parties by writing letters and reminders and also visiting them in person the office of the opposite parties a number of times, but the opposite parties paid no heed to his claim. The opposite parties through their Surveyor had also obtained his signatures on various blank papers/consent letter etc. on the assurance that the entire payment of his loss would be made to him. The complainant signed all those papers under bonafide belief. The complainant due to inaction of the opposite parties suffered huge loss in his business due to non availability of the vehicle. He was put to unnecessary mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment. The complainant has thus claimed the insured amount of Rs.1,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A and also an amount of Rs. 12,000/- on account of mental and physical tension, harassment etc.<br /> 2. The opposite parties contested the claim of the complainants by raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable; he has no cause of action; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; the complaint has been filed on false and fictitious facts; the complainant is not consumer; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint due to his own act and conduct; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, as such, complainant is not consumer. On merits, the ownership and insurance of the vehicle are not denied. However, opposite parties claimed that on receiving information of accident, surveyor was appointed and loss of the vehicle was got assessed. The surveyor prepared the estimate and loss to be payable to the complainants to the tune of Rs. 56,159/- and the complainants after understanding the damage to the tune of Rs. 56,159/- had given acceptance/consent letter to opposite parties admitting that the total loss as assessed by the surveyor to the extent of Rs. 56,159/- is acceptable to him. They also claimed that neither the surveyor nor the opposite parties had ever obtained any signatures of the complainant on any blank papers and that opposite parties were always ready to pay the claim to the tune of Rs. 56,159/- to the complainants on completion of the formalities by the complainants as per the rules.<br /> 3. In support of each others contentions, both the parties have led evidence. The complainants through their counsel filed affidavit Ex.C.1 of Sh. Anoop Bansal wherein he has stated on oath all the facts he has narrated in his complaint and in support of his assertions in his affidavit Ex.C.1, he has also brought on record insurance cover note Ex.C.2, legal notice dated 14.11.2008 Ex.C.3, photocopy of postal receipt Ex.C.4, copies of various letters of correspondence which he received and sent to opposite parties Ex.C.5 to Ex.C.9. The opposite parties to rebut the evidence of the complainants, brought on record an affidavit Ex.R.1 of Dr. J.L Ahuja, Senior Divisional Manager and also report of the Surveyor & Loss Assessor (second opinion) dated 18.10.2008 Ex.R.2 and consent letter of complainants dated 10.10.2008 Ex.R.3. <br /> 4. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 5. As per the evidence brought on the record by the complainants, the fact that Maruti Car No. PB-03L-0188 was owned by the complainants and it was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- is not in dispute. It is also undisputed fact that the said vehicle met with an accident on 24.11.2007 and the matter was reported to the opposite parties. The fact that the opposite parties appointed Mr. Rajpaul Singhal for conducting the spot survey and M/s. G. S Associates for conducting final survey is not in dispute. The correspondence between the complainants and opposite parties as per letters Ex.C.5 to Ex.C.9 is also not disputed by the parties. The opposite parties in the affidavit of Dr. J.L Ahuja Ex.R.1 almost admitted the case of the complainants except that the loss was assessed by the Surveyor of the opposite parties to the extent of Rs. 1,25,738/-. The opposite parties continued to ask that the loss was assessed by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs. 56,159/-. However, the opposite parties failed to bring on record any such report of any of the Surveyors appointed by them to assess the loss to be payable to the complainants. The opposite parties have brought on the record Ex.R.2 report of Sh. Dinesh K Goyal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor (second opinion) dated 18.10.2008 which clearly reveals that the Surveyor of the opposite parties while giving his second opinion clearly assessed the net insurers liability to the extent of Rs. 85,000/-. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties tried his best to explain that the liability of opposite parties is limited only to the extent of Rs. 56,159/- as the complainant vide his consent letter dated 10.10.2008 Ex.R.3 admitted that net loss assessed as Rs. 56,159/- may be taken as finally agreed amount for the full and final settlement of his claim to his entire satisfaction. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties appears to be without any force for the reasons that as per second opinion of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the opposite parties itself in his report Ex.R.2 assessed the net insurer liability to the extent of Rs. 85,000/- and even if consent letter Ex.R.3 reveals that complainants agreed for a sum of Rs. 56,159/-, will not restrict the legal liability of opposite parties to pay the net insurers liability to the extent of Rs.85,000/-. Otherwise also in view of correspondence between the complainants and the opposite parties Ex.C.5 to Ex.C.9, makes the authenticity of consent letter Ex.R.3 highly doubtful. The complainant has claimed that his signatures were obtained on blank consent letter and he infact never consented for payment of Rs. 56,159/- as full and final payment towards his claim. From the facts, circumstances and the evidence of the parties as has been discussed hereinabove, we are fully satisfied that opposite parties taken the benefit of consent letter Ex.R.3, rather, opposite parties are bound to pay the net insurers liability as per their own document Ex.R.2 on account of damage assessed due to the accident of the car of the complainants.<br /> 6. For the reasons recorded above, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 85,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.12.2008 till the payment is made. The compliance of this order be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The counsel for the parties have undertaken to get the copy of the order from the office.<br /> 7. The file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced ( George )<br /> 14.5.2009 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member