BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 304 of 2015 Date of Institution: 14.7.2015
Date of Decision: 28.10.2015
Parmod Kumar son of Sh. Sham Lal resident of House No.70, Bazar No.2, Ferozepur Cantt.
……..Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 11, The Mall, Opposite Town Hall, Ferozepur City through its Divisional Manager.
……… opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C. C. No. 304 of 2015 //2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Anil Garg, Representative
For the opposite party : Sh. Shallinder Sharma Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 11, The Mall, Opposite Town Hall, Ferozepur City through its Divisional Manager (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite party ) on the allegations that he got his car make Alto bearing registration No. PB-05V-2877 insured with the opposite party by paying premium of Rs.4420/-, which was valid upto 11.01.2016. It has been pleaded that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in the month of February 2015, when the same was driven by the brother of the complainant namely Anil Kumar. Intimation
C. C. No. 304 of 2015 //3//
in this regard was given to the opposite party. Thereafter on the instructions of the opposite party, the complainant brought his damaged vehicle at Sutlej Automobiles, Maruti Authorized Service Station, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt for repair purposes, where the surveyor was visited the Sutlej Automobiles and took the photographs and inspected the vehicle. The complainant spent an amount of Rs. 77,448/- including labour charges on the repair of the vehicle in question. Further it has been pleaded that after repairing the vehicle in question, the complainant approached the opposite party and submitted the entire bills alongwith requisite documents including the driving license of his brother to the opposite party for the settlement of his claim. But the opposite party paid Rs.46,930/- only out of Rs.77,448/-, without assigning any reason, which the complainant spent on the repair of the car in question. It has been further pleaded that the opposite party did not pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- i.e the loss of stereo and driver seat of the vehicle in question to the complainant. Non-paying the insured amount by the opposite party to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 30,518/- remaining insured amount, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment.
C. C. No. 304 of 2015 //4//
2. Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint raising certain preliminary objections interalia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; that the present complaint is nothing, but an abuse of process of the law; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the vehicle of the complainant damaged and intimation was received by the opposite party, who appointed surveyor Sh Baldev Kumar Saluja. The said surveyor visited the place of accident and shop where the vehicle was got repaired and submitted his report. As per report of the surveyor, the complainant is entitled to Rs.46,930/- and the said amount has rightly been paid to the complainant. On merits, the preliminary objections have been reiterated and the allegations of the complaint have been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has closed evidence on behalf of the complainant by tendering into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.O.P/1/1 to Ex.O.P1/3 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
C. C. No. 304 of 2015 //5//
5. The grievances of the complainant is that complainant had spent Rs.77,448/- on the repair of his vehicle and the opposite party paid only Rs.46,930/- to the complainant and with held the remaining amount of Rs.30,518/- illegally. The version of the complainant is that after repairing the vehicle the entire bills alongwith requisite documents including driving license of his brother submitted to the opposite party for settlement of the claim. The opposite parties have not paid the amount of damaged stereo to the tune of Rs.7000/- and of the driver seat of Rs.4000/- including some other parts. The version of the complainant is that there was not any condition at the time of purchase of the policy that in case vehicle met with an accident, then the complainant will not entitled to get the payment of the said parts. To prove his version that the complainant had spent Rs.77,448/- for the repair of his vehicle has placed on file copy of bills, Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6 from which it is proved that the complainant had spent Rs.77,448/- on the repair of his vehicle.
6. On other hand the version of the opposite party is that when the information of the accident was received by the opposite party then the opposite party appointed surveyor namely Mr. Baldev Kumar Saluja and the surveyor visited the place of accident and shop where the vehicle was got repaired and submitted his report and as per his report, the complainant found entitled to
C. C. No. 304 of 2015 //6//
Rs.46,930/- only. To prove his version, the opposite party has placed on file an affidavit Ex. OP-1, surveyor report Ex. OP-2 and copy of regulation Ex. OP-3. The complainant pleaded in the complaint that the opposite party has not paid the amount of damaged stereo to the tune of Rs.7000/-. Regarding the claim of electrical/electronic fitting it is mentioned in Ex.OP-3 at serial No.34 that if the electrical and/or electronics items fitted to the vehicle but not included in the manufacturer’s selling price of the vehicle are to be insured, it can be done separately under Section- 1(Loss of on damage to the vehicle insured) of the package policy at an additional premium @4% on the value of such fittings to be specifically declared by the insured in the proposal form and/or in a letter forming part of proposal form. The opposite party has not placed on file any document to prove that stereo fitted in the vehicle was not included in the manufacture’s selling bills. The opposite party has not placed on file proposal form which is in the possession of the opposite party. The opposite party has not placed any document on file to prove that as to how he assessed the loss of Rs.46,930/- whereas the complainant had spent Rs.77,448/- for repairing of his vehicle. The opposite party has not placed on file any affidavit of surveyor on what basis surveyor assessed the amount mentioned in the surveyor report. The opposite party has not placed any regulation or circular of IRDA by which the loss of the
C. C. No. 304 of 2015 //7//
vehicle can be assessed. The report of the surveyor is based on surmises and conjectures. The report of the surveyor is totally vague and have not any valid basis.
7. From the above discussion, it is clearly proved that the opposite party is illegally withheld the remaining claim amount of Rs.30518/-of the complainant without assigning any reasons. The opposite party is found deficient rendering proper service to the complainant, so, the complainant is entitled for suitable compensation.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 30,518/- to the complainant. Further the opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
28.10.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
