Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle TATA Indigo Marine LX baring registration No.PB-02-AV-6169, got it insured with Opposite Party vide policy No.233300/31/2015/5690, cover note No.CHD-d-518589 dated 4.3.2015, for a period from 7.3.2015 to 6.3.2016 for the total insured amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. During the subsistence and validity of the said insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 14.12.2015 and was totally damaged and this fact ws told to the Opposite Party by the complainant and accordingly, they got it surveyed by appointment of their surveyor Sh.Barjinder Singh who made verification of the spot as well as damaged vehicle and he reported to the company regarding total damage of the said vehicle.  As such, in terms of the aforesaid policy, the complainant is legally entitled and the Opposite Party is legally liable to pay the total insured amount covered under the policy in question. But as per the letter dated 19.5.2016 issued by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party informed the complainant that the competent authority has approved the claim for Rs.1,20,000/- on total loss basis s per the actual market value of the vehicle allegedly assessed by the said surveyor, whereas the complainant is entitled to get the total insured amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. The alleged approval of the Opposite Party of the claim of Rs.1,20,000/- is wrong, illegal, unjust, malafide, arbitrary and against the law.    Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Party may kindly be directed to make the payment of total claim amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant covered under the policy.

b)      To pay Rs.30,000/- for causing him mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

c)       To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of costs of litigation. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Sh.Sandeep Khanna, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party and filed reply taking the preliminary objections inter alia therein that the present complaint is not maintainable being a premature. In the present case, the claim in question has never been repudiated or disallowed by Opposite Party, rather the claim of the complainant was pending disposal at the time of filing of the present complaint. The Opposite Party had informed the complainant vide letter dated 19.5.2015 that the competent authority had approved the claim for Rs.1,20,000/- on total loss basis subject to complete of usual formalities i.e. submission of cancellation of RC of vehicle through registration authority, deposit of salvage at expenses of the complainant at place intimated to him after submission of cancellation of RC in the office, KYC documents i.e. copy of PAN, residence proof, photograph and cancelled cheque. The complainant agreed to receive the approved amount out of his own free will and consent  and executed the discharge voucher voluntarily in that regard for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. However, the complainant failed to comply with the requisite formalities and never submitted the documents as required, as such, the complainant is not entitled to the present claim on account of his own acts and omissions. The present loss was assessed at Rs.1,20,000/- by Barjinder Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor on the basis of current market value of the vehicle in question. In this regard, it is submitted that loss assessed by the surveyor is best piece of evidence and same has to be taken as correct one unless the other party produces any cogent evidence to show that the said loss assessed by the surveyor is incorrect.  Hence, the loss assessed by the surveyor is to be taken as final one. On merits, the Opposite Party took almost the same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1  to Ex.C8  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1  alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and submitted that complainant being the owner of the vehicle TATA Indigo Marine LX baring registration No.PB-02-AV-6169, got it insured with Opposite Party vide policy No.233300/31/2015/5690, cover note No.CHD-d-518589 dated 4.3.2015, for a period from 7.3.2015 to 6.3.2016 for the total insured amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. During the subsistence and validity of the said insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 14.12.2015 and was totally damaged and this fact was told to the Opposite Party by the complainant and accordingly, they got it surveyed by appointment of their surveyor Sh.Barjinder Singh who made  verification of the spot as well as damaged vehicle and he reported to the company regarding total damage of the said vehicle.  As such, in terms of the aforesaid policy, the complainant is legally entitled and the Opposite Party is legally liable to pay the total insured amount covered under the policy in question. But as per the letter dated 19.5.2016 issued by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party informed the complainant that the competent authority has approved the claim for Rs.1,20,000/- on total loss basis s per the actual market value of the vehicle allegedly assessed by the said surveyor, whereas the complainant is entitled to get the total insured amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. The alleged approval of the Opposite Party of the claim of Rs.1,20,000/- is wrong, illegal, unjust, malafide, arbitrary and against the law.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant and  made statement that the Opposite Party is ready to pay the settled claim amount as agreed by the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- as full and final  payment of the claim in question and subject to fulfillment of requisite formalities by the complainant i.e. cancellation of RC of the vehicle in question, submission of KYC documents and delivery of vehicle in question  (after cancellation of RC) at the expenses of the complainant at the place intimated by the insurance company. 

8.       It is not  disputed that immediately after the information provided by the complainant to the Opposite Party  about the accident of the vehicle in question, the Opposite Party appointed Sh. Barjinder Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor who  surveyed the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of total loss basis. It is settled law that report of the surveyor can not be thrown away without any reasonable cause and the report of the surveyor has to be relied upon by the court in assessing the compensation. Reliance in this connection can be placed of case: Sri Venkateshwar Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II(2010) CPJ 1 (SC).  Ld.counsel for Opposite Party has further contended that the complainant has agreed to receive the approved amount out of his own free will and consent  and executed the discharge voucher voluntarily in that regard for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, copy of which is placed on record as Ex.OP6. However, the complainant failed to comply with the requisite formalities and never submitted the documents as required, as such, the complainant is not entitled to the present claim on account of his own acts and omissions. The present loss was assessed at Rs.1,20,000/- by Barjinder Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor on the basis of current market value of the vehicle in question. In this regard, it is submitted that loss assessed by the surveyor is best piece of evidence and same has to be taken as correct one unless the other party produces any cogent evidence to show that the said loss assessed by the surveyor is incorrect.  Hence, the loss assessed by the surveyor is to be taken as final one. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has already submitted the requisite documents to the Opposite Party, but no proof of producing the said documents is placed on record by the complainant. On the other hand,  the complainant has failed to produce on record any other parallel report of any other surveyor to prove his case with regard to the loss to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the complainant to submit the requisite documents i.e.cancellation of RC of the vehicle in question, submission of KYC documents and delivery of vehicle in question  (after cancellation of RC) at the expenses of the complainant at the place intimated by the insurance company, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and thereafter, the Opposite Party shall  make the payment of Rs.1,20,000/ - as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within further 30 days from the date of receipt of requisite documents from the complainant, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint till its realisation.    Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the file be consigned to record room after compliance. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum