Haryana

Sonipat

CC/55/2016

Smt. Raj Bala W/o Sat Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Raj Bala

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.55 of 2016

                                Instituted on:17.02.2016

                                Date of order:21.07.2016

 

Raj Bala wife of latge Sat Pal, r/o village Barwasni, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.The Divisional Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., 204-R, Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat.

2.The Manager, Malwa Auto Sales (P) Ltd., NH-1, 31 KM Stone, GT road, Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Sh. HC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging herself to be the registered owner of vehicle no.HR10W/4954 which was insured with the respondent no.1 for the period w.e.f. 9.4.2015 to 8.4.2016.  Unfortunately, the said vehicle has met with an accident on 18.6.2015.  The respondent no.1 was informed regarding the accident, who has deputed the surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle.  The complainant has lodged the claim with the respondent no.1.  The respondent no.2 has charged the total amount of Rs.1,28,938/- from the complainant as repair charges, but the respondent no.1 has considered the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,11,000/- only and has deducted Rs.18938/- wrongly and illegally.  The complainant has alleged the deduction of Rs.18938/- to be wrong and illegal. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 has only appeared and has filed the reply, whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

          The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the loss to the vehicle of the complainant was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,13,162.26 paise, which includes the towing  charges as Rs.1000/-.   However, Rs.1500/- and Rs.1000/- were deducted towards scrap value and excess clause and the net loss comes to the tune of Rs.1,11,662/-.  The claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.1,11,000/- and she received the same in full and final satisfaction of her claim.  The respondents  have not deducted the amount of Rs.18938/- wrongly or illegally as alleged by the complainant.  So, she is not entitled to get any amount from the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        However, Rs.

We have heard the arguments advanced by both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the loss to the vehicle of the complainant was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,13,162.26 paise, which includes the towing  charges as Rs.1000/-.   However, Rs.1500/- and Rs.1000/- were deducted towards scrap value and excess clause and the net loss comes to the tune of Rs.1,11,662/-.  The claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.1,11,000/- and she received the same in full and final satisfaction of her claim.  The respondents  have not deducted the amount of Rs.18938/- wrongly or illegally as alleged by the complainant.  So, she is not entitled to get any amount from the respondents.

          In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as Raj Kumar Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. CPC 2011(3) Page 254, Khumjibhai and sons Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd.  2011(3) CPC page 489 and Swan Energy Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. CPC 2011(3) Page 556.

          In the present case, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the respondent no.1 under the policy 0% depreciation, Bumper to Bumper.  We have perused the surveyor report Ex.R3 wherein, the surveyor Er. Abdul Kayum has given a note that “Its Nil dep. Policy coverage claim so please check the Policy, if any.

          The plea  of the respondent no.1 that the claim of Rs.1,11,000/- was paid to the complainant in full and final settlement and as per satisfaction of the complainant.  But in our view, this plea of the respondent no.1 is not tenable in the eyes of law, because the full and final settlement becomes null and void as a new scheme was came into force vide which the complainant’s vehicle was insured under bumper to bumper coverage (Nil Depreciation Policy).  In this situation, the previous settlement whatever it may be has taken place between the parties has come to an end with immediate effect.  Moreover, as per the surveyor report Ex.R3 on page no.5, some notes were written by the surveyor himself.  As per second note, it is mentioned that “some extra parts are mentioned there in the final repair bill whereas we had assessed the loss as per settlement with the repairer considering the estimates provided by them”.  It means that the surveyor has assessed the loss as per the estimate and as per the alleged settlement.  It seems that without reinspection of the vehicle, the surveyor has assessed the loss, which is wrong and illegal.  Moreover, when a person purchased a Zero percent depreciation policy and if the vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the vehicle suffered some loss in his vehicle, in that situation, the whole expenses regarding repair, labour charges etc. are to be bear by the insurance company.  In the present case also, if the complainant has spent Rs.1,28,938/- on the repair of the vehicle, why she will settle her claim for Rs.1,11,000/-. So, in our view, the surveyor has wrongly assessed the claim merely on the estimate.  Further the consent is also taken from the complainant fraudulently.

          As per the respondent no.1, Rs.1000/- were deducted towards salvage charges,  but the salvage was not handed over to the complainant.  Thus, the deduction of Rs.1000/- without handing over the salvage to the complainant is wrong, illegal and unjustified.  The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.18938/- from the respondent no.1.  But in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondent no.1 to pay lumpsum Rs.12000/- to the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to pay lumpsum Rs.12,000/- (Rs.twelve thousand) to the complainant towards the amount of Rs.18938/- which the complainant has claimed by way of present complaint and further to compensate her to the tune of Rs.Three Thousand for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)            (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF   Member DCDRF                  DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 21.07.2016