Haryana

Sonipat

153/2014

DILBAG SINGH S/O DAYANANAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. MIGLANI

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.153 of 2014

Instituted on: 04.06.2014                 

Date of order: 27.11.2015

 

Dilbag Singh son of Dayanand, Prop. M/s Mahalaxmi Finance Co. Meham road, Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.           Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Gohana through its Branch Manager.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.SS Miglani Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.Surender Malik, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V.Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Fortuner bearing no.HR11B/0001 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 21.12.2012 to 20.12.2013 and unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 24.11.2013.  FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  The vehicle was shifted to Toyota Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Karnal  who submitted a bill of Rs.8,44,471/- on 25.12.2013 and the complainant has paid the said amount to the said repairer.  The respondent called the complainant and offered Rs.5,17,000/-, but due to demand of illegal gratification, the complainant refused to accept the same.  The complainant received a letter dated 1.4.2014 from the respondent by which the complainant was asked to accept Rs.3,66,253/-.  The complainant has alleged the said action of the respondent by paying Rs.366253/- against the actual repair cost of Rs.8,44,471/- to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

 

2.        The respondent in their reply has submitted that the complainant has received an amount of Rs.4,95,367/- from the respondent vide cheque no.83625 dated 20.11.2014 and this amount has been received by the complainant for his entire satisfaction and he has also signed the discharged voucher in favour of the respondent.   The surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.5,20,498/- and salvage value of damaged part as Rs.16000/-. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.495367/- and thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Thus, the respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

 

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has received an amount of Rs.4,95,367/- from the respondent vide cheque no.83625 dated 20.11.2014 and this amount has been received by the complainant for his entire satisfaction and he has also signed the discharged voucher in favour of the respondent.   The surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.5,20,498/- and salvage value of damaged part as Rs.16000/-. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.495367/- and thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

 

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form since the complainant has received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim.

          We have perused the case file very carefully. The present complaint was filed by the complainant by this Forum on 04.06.2014 and as per the respondent, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.495367/- from the respondent in full and final settlement of his claim on 20.11.2014 i.e. during the pendency of the present complaint. So, it cannot be said that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form in any manner.

 

          Now the question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief against the respondent or not and if so to what amount?

 

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the accident of the complainant’s vehicle. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle has met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy.

          As per the complainant, he has spent about Rs.8,44,471/- on the repair of the vehicle and this amount was paid by him to the authorized repairer of Toyota Motors.  We have perused the surveyor report Ex.RW2/B submitted by Sh. Vinod Kumar Wadhwa to the insurance company. In this report, the said surveyor has mentioned the estimated loss to the tune of Rs.9,09,476/-, but he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,20,498/- and out of this amount, the respondent has paid Rs.4,95,367/- to the complainant.

          The perusal of the surveyor report Ex.RW2/B shows that the surveyor against serial no.16 has assessed Rs.2968/- against Rs.16746/-. Against serial no.17, the surveyor has mentioned the estimated cost of Rs.6570/-, but has not assessed its value. Similar is the position with serial no.21, 25, 28, 29, 30,  37, 38, 44, 53, 55, 58, 61 and this Forum has failed to understand why the above said amount was excluded by the surveyor and why this amount was not considered by the surveyor while assessing the loss.  Similarly, the surveyor against the estimated labour charges of Rs.67955/- has assessed Rs.61033/-.

 

          The respondent has placed on record motor survey report of Vinod Kumar wadhwa, surveyor and loss assessor. But the respondent has not placed on record the final survey report in respect of the claim of the complainant.  So, in our view, there is some hide and seek on the part of the surveyor and insurance company.  The accident of the complainant’s vehicle has taken place on 24.11.2013 and the respondent insurance company has transferred the amount in the account of the complainant without his consent during the pendency of the present case.  So, after taking into consideration the motor survey report of Vinod Kumar Wadhwa who has not considered some of the amount as mentioned in the preceding para, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be fully met if the respondent insurance company is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.one lac fifty thousand) to the complainant for not paying the payment of the parts, for making less payment of the parts and for rendering deficient services to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.one lac fifty thousand to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of accident till its realization and further to pay Rs.ten thousand for rendering deficient services, for harassment and also to pay Rs.five thousand under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)      (DV Rathi)        (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF       Member, DCDRF,      President

    SNP                SNP              DCDRF SNP.

 

ANNOUNCED 27.11.2015