Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/17

Urmila Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ashu Mittal

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      17

Date of Institution:  9.01.2017

Date of Decision :   12.06.2017

 

 

Urmila Gupta aged about 50 years, w/o Ghansham Gupta, r/o Factory Road, Ram Sharnam Colony, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                                              .....Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Near Old Grain Market, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Managing Director.

.......Op

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Deep Chand Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to make payment of insurance claim amount worth Rs.57,755/-with interest and for further directing OP to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she got insured her Tata Indica car bearing RC No. PB04R 4335 with OPs vide Policy No. 233702/31/2016/4789 and at the time of insurance, Ops assured complainant that in case of any damage in accident, complainant would have to pay only Rs.1000/-under compulsory deductible clause and then, damaged part of insured vehicle would be replaced without any further payment. It is submitted that during validity of insurance cover, car of complainant met with an accident on 19-20.04.2016. On intimation by complainant, Ops sent a Surveyor, who after inspection asked complainant to park the vehicle at any work shop. Complainant parked his vehicle at India Motor Garage, Kotkapura by paying Rs.2000/-as towing charges and after inspecting the said workshop gave estimate to Surveyor and Ops allowed complainant to get repaired his vehicle. It is submitted that while doing repairs, mechanic noticed that some more parts of lower side of his vehicle required replacement and therefore, he gave supplementary estimate for Rs.29,000/-, which complainant submitted to OP-1 and on permission by OP-1, complainant got repaired his vehicle and paid all expenses from his own pocket as Ops assured complainant that it would take two three months to pass his claim. After repairs, complainant submitted the original bills to OP-1, who also assured complainant to credit the claimed amount in his account. It is further submitted that on 9.08.2016, Ops deposited Rs.38,400/-in the account of complainant without informing him and when came to know that Ops have credited less amount, he enquired about this from OP-1, who did not give any satisfactory reply. On several requests by complainant to give copy of Survey Report, Ops gave him copy of survey report of Ashok Kumar Bansal on the basis of which, they paid Rs.38,400/-to him. It is asserted that Ashok Kumar Bansal is a Civil Engineer and not a mechanic engineer but Ops did not accept the genuine request of complainant and refused to admit the remaining claim, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for directions to Op to pay the insurance claim worth Rs.57,755/- and Rs.40,000/- as compensation besides cost of litigation. Hence, the present complaint.

3                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to gain undue advantage from Ops. However, on merits they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted that car of complainant was insured with Ops subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is asserted that after thorough inspection of the car, the owner of India Motor Garage gave detailed estimate of expenses to be incurred on repair of vehicle of complainant  and as per estimate given by India Motor Garage and report of Surveyor, compensation was given to complainant. the car was thoroughly inspected by agency and it is denied that any more parts required replacement. The car in question was opened in the presence of Surveyor, when said India Motor Garage issued estimated bill to him and there was no other defect in the car, rather complainant got prepared the supplementary estimate bill out of greed and OP-1 never allowed complainant to replace the alleged damaged part of car on the basis of alleged supplementary estimate bill. Had any permission to replacement or repair on the basis of supplementary bill been given, it would have been in writing. Moreover, Ops never assured complainant regarding payment of supplementary estimate bill. The Surveyor of Company investigated the matter twice and came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to only Rs.38,400/-, which have already been given to complainant and complainant is not entitled to any claim or compensation. It is further averred that complainant has no cause of action against answering OPs. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C- 8 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Ashwani Kumar, Div. Manager as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-8 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                  The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant got insured her Tata Indica car bearing RC No. PB04R 4335 with OPs and at the time of insurance, Ops assured complainant that in case of any damage in accident, complainant would have to pay only Rs.1000/-under compulsory deductible clause and then, damaged part of insured vehicle would be replaced without any further payment. It is submitted that during validity of insurance cover, car of complainant met with an accident on 19-20.04.2016. On intimation by complainant, Ops sent a Surveyor, who after inspection asked complainant to park the vehicle at any work shop. Complainant parked his vehicle at India Motor Garage, Kotkapura by paying Rs.2000/-as towing charges and after inspecting the said workshop gave estimate to Surveyor and Ops allowed complainant to get repaired his vehicle. It is submitted that while doing repairs, mechanic noticed that some more parts of lower side of his vehicle required replacement and therefore, he gave supplementary estimate for Rs.29,000/-, which complainant submitted to OP-1 and on permission by OP-1, complainant got repaired his vehicle and paid all expenses from his own pocket as Ops assured complainant that it would take two three months to pass his claim. After repairs, complainant submitted the original bills to OP-1, who also assured complainant to credit the claimed amount in his account. It is further submitted that on 9.08.2016, Ops deposited Rs.38,400/-in the account of complainant without informing him and when came to know that Ops have credited less amount, he enquired about this from OP-1, who did not give any satisfactory reply. On several requests by complainant to give copy of Survey Report, Ops gave him copy of survey report of Ashok Kumar Bansal on the basis of which, they paid Rs.38,400/-to him. It is asserted that Ashok Kumar Bansal is a Civil Engineer and not a mechanic engineer but Ops did not accept the genuine request of complainant and refused to admit the remaining claim, which amounts to deficiency in service. She has prayed for accepting the complaint.

9                                      To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part. He admitted that car in question was insured with OP, which met with an accident and complainant gave information regarding it to them and they appointed Surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle. It is asserted that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to gain undue advantage from Ops. Counsel for Ops argued that all the allegations of complainant are wrong and incorrect. It is asserted that after thorough inspection of the car, the owner of India Motor Garage gave detailed estimate of expenses to be incurred on repair of vehicle of complainant  and as per estimate given by India Motor Garage and report of Surveyor, compensation was given to complainant. the car was thoroughly inspected by agency and it is denied that any more parts required replacement. The car in question was opened in the presence of Surveyor, when said India Motor Garage issued estimated bill to him and there was no other defect in the car, rather complainant got prepared the supplementary estimate bill out of greed and OP-1 never allowed complainant to replace the alleged damaged part of car on the basis of alleged supplementary estimate bill. Had any permission to replacement or repair on the basis of supplementary bill been given, it would have been in writing. Moreover, Ops never assured complainant regarding payment of supplementary estimate bill. The Surveyor of Company investigated the matter twice and came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to only Rs.38,400/-, which have already been given to complainant and complainant is not entitled to any claim or compensation. It is further averred that complainant has no cause of action against answering OPs. It is further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for its dismissal.

10                                          The case of the complainant is that her insured car met with an accident within the validity of insurance period and got damaged. On intimation to Ops, surveyor was appointed and on his directions, complainant got prepared the estimate bill for repairs and during making repairs, mechanic noticed that some more parts of lower side of his vehicle required replacement and therefore, he gave supplementary estimate for Rs.29,000/-, which complainant submitted to OP-1 and on permission by OP-1, complainant got repaired his vehicle and paid all expenses from his own pocket as Ops assured complainant that it would take two three months to pass his claim. On 9.08.2016, Ops deposited Rs.38,400/-in the account of complainant and credited very less amount. On several requests by complainant, Ops gave him copy of survey report of Ashok Kumar Bansal on the basis of which, they paid Rs.38,400/-to him. Complainant has contended that Ashok Kumar Bansal is a Civil Engineer and not a mechanic engineer but Ops did not accept the genuine request of complainant and refused to admit the remaining claim, which amounts to deficiency in service she has prayed for directions to OPs to pay the insurance claim worth Rs.57,755/- alongwith compensation. In reply, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they complainant got prepared the supplementary estimate bill out of greed as during inspection of vehicle by Surveyor,  he did not notice any replacement of other parts, which complainant listed in supplementary estimate bill.

11                                 The ld counsel for complainant argued that service centre prepared detailed estimate after thorough inspection of the vehicle after opening it in the presence of Surveyor and at that time, no parts as claimed in supplementary estimate were found defective. Even after the repair when Surveyor visited the service centre and made final inspection, at that time also these alleged parts were not found replaced or repaired and after final inspection, Surveyor prepared his final Survey Report on the basis of this final survey report, the Ops paid compensation to complainant regarding damages of the vehicle. Complainant submitted the supplementary estimate after final survey and even failed to produce bills regarding these parts. On the representation of complainant, the Ops again sent the matter to Surveyor for inspection, who gave his report regarding it on 20.07.2016 vide which he declared this supplementary estimate being not genuine. The copy of this report is Ex Op-4 where Surveyor observed that I have already informed to your good honour that the parts mentioned in the supplementary estimate submitted by insured after complete repair of the vehicle, even after submitting the final cash memos can not be considered now, because the insured had never shown us the damaged parts at the time of re-inspection of the vehicle.

12                         From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that the supplementary estimates produced by complainant is not genuine one and prepared afterwards only to get undue advantage and benefit from Ops. However, from the perusal of survey report Ex OP-3, it is transpired that surveyor ignored the claim regarding some parts which was to be paid to complainant at serial no. 9. Surveyor not allowed payment for repair of AC Condenser and stipney at serial no.13. further he deducted depreciation amount to Rs.1375/- out of labour charges, which are also not found genuine. So, in these circumstances, present complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. Ops are directed to pay Rs.8000/-more to complainant on account of repair charges. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 12.06.2017                 

 

          Member                           President

                             (P Singla)                         (Ajit Aggarwal)