Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/220/2019

Gaurav Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar Adv.

21 Dec 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	220 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	30.09.2019
Date of Order	:	21.12.2020

 

Gaurav Sharma, resident of House No.381, Saini Vihar, Phase I, V & PO Baltana, District SAS Nagar – 140604.

…..Appellant /complainant.

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, DO-III, SCO 72 and 73-A, 2^nd Floor, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh, through its Senior Divisional Manager.  

                                                …Respondent /Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Brig. B.S.Taunque (Retd.), Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.05.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.310 of 2018 against the Opposite Party, which   reads  as under :-

“13.        In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed, to:-

1. To pay Rs.89,261/- as assessed by the Surveyor, to the Complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 26.12.2017, till realization.

(ii)    To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

(iii)   To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

14.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from the date of repudiation i.e. 26.12.2017, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [iii]” 

2.            In the complaint case before the Forum (now District Commission), only dispute was that the complainant purchased a brand new Ford Figo car, for which, he took insurance policy from the Opposite Party. The said vehicle met with an accident on 30.07.2017 and intimation in this regard was given to the insurance company but the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 26.12.2017.

3.                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Complainant.

4.                We have heard Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

5.           Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in as much as the surveyor in his report though correctly assessed the amount of Rs.1,22,648/- but arbitrarily deducted an amount of Rs.30,887/- on account of 25% on Non Standard Basis simply on the ground that there was no spot survey got done. He prayed for modification of the impugned order by way of enhancement of the claim, compensation, interest and cost.

6.                Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties has submitted that in compliance to the impugned order, the Opposite Parties already paid an amount of Rs.1,25,992/- into the bank account of the appellant/complainant vide claim payment voucher dated 12.06.2019 (Annexure P-1). He has further submitted that it is settled law that the report of the surveyor is an important piece of document and cannot be brushed aside. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

7.                After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

8.                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.  The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that the complainant took insurance policy of his car i.e. Ford Figo bearing registration No.PB-01-B-1629 for the period from 09.08.2016 to 08.08.2017 and IDV is mentioned as Rs.5,68,400 (Annexure C-1). It is also, no doubt, true that the vehicle met with an accident on 30.07.2017 and the said vehicle was shifted to Bhagat Ford for repair of the same. Intimation regarding the accident was also given to the Opposite Party – Insurance Company, who deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. It is also true that the complainant had to spent Rs.1,31,481/- from his own pocket for repair of the vehicle. It is also the admitted that the claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure C-4) because as per driving licence of Sh.Surjit Singh was valid for MCWG, LMV & LMV-GV only and he was driving the transport vehicle (passengers). Even the Insurance Company offered to pay an amount of Rs.89,000/- to the complainant vide letter dated 24.08.2018 but he declined to accept the same.  

9.                At the time of arguments, the plea taken by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant that a person having suffered heavy damages to his vehicle would first react to inform the insurance company immediately and get the vehicle pre-inspected on the spot, has no value at all because the respondents/insurance company in their written arguments clearly stated that after the accident, the complainant on his own shifted the car to Bhagat Ford at Zirakpur and never intimated to the insurance company. As such, the insurer was denied the opportunity to conduct spot survey because he intimated to the insurance company after four days on 04.08.2017 and no FIR as well as no details of offending vehicle was mentioned. With regard to deduction of an amount of Rs.30,887/- on account of 25% on Non Standard Basis simply on the ground that there was no spot survey got done and prayed for enhancement of the award is concerned,  a bare perusal of the insurance policy at page No.3 clearly reveals that “25% will be deducted from Claim Amount in the absence of Spot Survey”.

10.              In the instant case, the amount assessed by the surveyor for repair of the vehicle is Rs.1,22,648/-, as such, a sum of Rs.30,887/- on account of 25% ; Rs.1500/- on account of excess clause as per policy excess and another Rs.2261/- on account of salvage was liable to be deducted. Therefore, we are of the view that the insurance company rightly deducted the amount. Not only this, as per the written arguments of the insurance company, they have fully complied with the impugned order and a sum of Rs.1,25,992/- has already been paid into the bank account of the appellant/complainant, as is evident from Annexure P-1 (payment voucher).  Even no cogent evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to falsify the report of the surveyor, except bald assertions, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.  So, we are of the view that the Forum has sufficiently granted relief to the appellant/complainant in the impugned order.

11.              For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum (now District Commission) is upheld.

12.              Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.

Pronounced.

21.12.2020                                                                      Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb

 

 

 

                                 STATE COMMISSION

(A/220/2019)

Argued by:

 

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Brig. B.S.Taunque (Retd.), Advocate for the respondent.

 

 

Dated the 21^st day of December, 2020

 

ORDER

 

            Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI ) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

rb