Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/766/2014

Sh Deepak Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajmer Lal Pundeer

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/766/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	21/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	29/06/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Deepak Kumar s/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Manouli, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Punjab).

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

[1]   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 109-110-111, Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager.

 

[2]   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No. III, Quiet Office No.15, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Ajmer Lal Pundeer, Advocate.
For OPs	:	Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant who is running his business under the name & style M/s Khushi Tour and Travels for earning his livelihood got his Taxi bearing Regn.No. PB-01-A-2785 comprehensively insured from the Opposite Party No.2 for the period 23.01.2014 to 22.01.2015 for an IDV of Rs.4,69,500/- vide cover note Annexure C-4. During the currency of the aforesaid policy, on 2.3.2014, whilst the Complainant was on trip to Amloh (Punjab), he parked his aforesaid car on extreme left side of road, leaving the road aside and went along with his client in the nearby office, when a car hit into the standing insured vehicle while coming from the opposite side. The vehicle sustained damages and was taken to M/s Harman Motors, SAS Nagar, Mohali, for repairs. The Opposite Party No.1 was also intimated, upon which a Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss. It has been alleged that on 10.3.2014, to the surprise of the Complainant, the Proprietor of M/s Harman Motors informed that the Opposite Party No.2 told him that the premium cheque of the Complainant was dishonoured and thus the risk on the insured car is not covered; whereas, the Complainant was confirmed by his Banker that premium cheque in question was cleared on 5.2.2014. Thereafter, the Complainant rushed to the offices of the Opposite Parties and repairer to make the position clear, but his many attempts proved futile. It has been alleged that on 23.5.2014 the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that they were going to settle his pending claim on non-standard basis for the reason that Spot Survey was not got conducted by him. The Complainant protested against their proposed decision and explained the facts and circumstances to the concerned officer/ official of Opposite Party No.1 under which the car was immediately removed from the place of accident and also submitted written application in person on their demand. The Complainant was assured that they would remit the full payment as per surveyor’s assessment and took signatures on certain claim papers before leaving their office. It has been averred that the estimate given by the repairer for repair of damaged car was Rs.90,000/- and the actual payment made by the Complainant to the repairer at the time of taking delivery was Rs.77,765.74/-. However, the Opposite Party No.1 remitted Rs.36,456/- to the Complainant on 29.5.2014 against the assessment of Rs.52,930/- made by the Surveyor in an arbitrary and prejudicial manner. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure C-12) upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the factual matrix of the case and pleaded that the spot survey was to be done by a surveyor licensed by IRDA and appointed by the company and the spot survey report was to be made for the same which was not done as the Complainant had not intimated the answering Opposite Parties immediately regarding the said accident, thus not giving an opportunity of survey to the Opposite Parties. It has been asserted that in case of PCV-4 Wheelers carrying passengers capacity not >6, 25% would be deducted from claim amount in the absence of spot survey. Accordingly, the claim was settled on non-standard basis after a deduction of 25% and an amount of Rs.36,456/- was rightly credited to the account of the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed replication wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.  

 

7.     The main thrust of the Opposite Parties is that 25% of the amount was deducted as spot survey was not carried out by the Surveyor as per the policy document. The Complainant’s contention is that the policy document was not received by him and he was not aware of the same. We are not impressed with the same, as there is not even an iota of evidence to show that the Complainant has ever raised the issue of non-receipt of the policy document with the Opposite Parties. Meaning thereby, that the policy in question was received by the Complainant. It was for the Complainant to satisfy himself with the terms and conditions before renewal of the cover note. Evidently, the spot survey was not got done due to which, the claim was settled on non-standard basis after a deduction of 25% and hence, to our mind, the claim was fully and finally settled on non-standard basis after a deduction of 25% as per the policy. 

 

8.     Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the Complainant has not been able to prove his case of alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.  Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint.  Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

9.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th June, 2015                                       Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                    Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER