Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/89/2023

GAMDOOR SINGH AULAKH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/89/2023
Date of Institution	:	20/02/2023
Date of Decision	:	02/01/2024

Gamdoor Singh Aulakh son of Sh. Babu Singh Aulakh, resident of House No.383, Sarbha Nagar, Back Side of D.A.V. Public School, Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Corporate Office : Unit HO 103, 1^st Floor, Ackruti Star, MIDC Central Road Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400093.
2. Navdesh Autos LLP Plot No.182/11, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for OP-1
	:	Ms. Neety Kaul, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Gamdoor Singh Aulakh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that complainant is the registered owner of a Celerio car bearing registration No.PB-65-AR-6590 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) which was got insured by him from OP-1 vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1), which was valid w.e.f. 22.11.2021 to 21.11.2022.  In order to earn his livelihood, complainant had leased out the subject car to one Rajender Singh on monthly rent of ₹18,200/- vide lease agreement (Annexure C-2).  On 29.1.2022 the subject car, while being driven by one Dheeraj Kumar, met with an accident on turning point of Phase 7 to Kumbra Chowk, SAS Nagar, Mohali with one electric scooter, without registration No., being driven by one Balbir Singh, which resulted in causing death of the said Balbir Singh.  The matter was immediately reported to the police in pursuance to which FIR No.0015 dated 29.1.2022 (Annexure C-3) was registered at Police Station, Phase 8, against said Dheeraj Kumar and the OP/insurer was also intimated.  The subject car was impounded by the police, which was later on got released by the complainant on sapurdari by order dated 28.2.2022 (Annexure C-4) of the Court.  Thereafter the subject car was brought to the workshop of OP-2 for repair.  OP-1/insurer deputed surveyor namely Amandeep who inspected the subject car and after receiving all the relevant documents assessed the loss to the tune of approximately ₹70,605/- and allowed the repair of the subject car.  However, OP-2 after repair of the subject car did not allow the complainant to take away the same as no payment was made by the insurer, as a result of which complainant was compelled to pay the invoice (Annexure C-5) amount of ₹70,605/-.  Thereafter complainant requested OPs to refund the aforesaid amount, but, with no result.  Complainant also issued legal notice (Annexure C-6) to OPs, which was replied by them (Annexure C-7 & C-8).  In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written versions.
3. In its written version, OP-1, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action and also that the complainant himself has not complied with the request made by the answering OP to submit certain documents, which were required for processing the claim.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was insured by the answering OP vide subject policy (Annexure R-1) and the same had met with an accident, but, the complainant had given intimation to the answering OP on 3.3.2022 i.e. after expiry of one month and five days.  It is further admitted that the answering OP has deputed surveyor and assessed the loss as per terms and conditions of the subject policy.  It is further stated that the complainant was requested through letters dated 18.5.2022 and 20.6.2022 to submit the requisite documents in order to assess/process the claim, but, he had not complied with the same, as a result of which the claim could not be processed and accordingly the same was closed vide letter dated 27.7.2022 (Annexure R-3).  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version, OP-2, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was brought to the workshop of the answering OP for repair and the same was repaired and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.  It is further admitted that the subject car met with an accident and was damaged and after its repair the same was handed over to the complainant.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car, which was leased out by him to one Rajender Singh, as is also evident from the copy of lease/rent agreement dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure C-2), and the same met with an accident on the relevant date time and place and suffered damage and when the matter was reported to the police, FIR was registered against the driver, as is also evident from the copy of FIR (Annexure C-3) and the complainant had intimated the insurer/OP-1 about the accident and thereafter OP-1 deputed surveyor to assess the loss of the subject car and the claim has not been processed by OP-1/insurer till date and rather closed the same on the ground that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents, as is also evident from the letters dated 18.5.2022 and 20.6.2022 (Annexure R-2), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1/insurer is unjustified in closing the claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OP-1/insurer has rightly closed the claim of the complainant and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-1/insurer.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the certificate cum policy schedule, survey report and claim closure letter and the same are required to be scanned carefully for determining the real controversy between the parties.
   3. The case of the complainant is that, as it stands proved on record that the subject car, having been driven by one Dheeraj Kumar, had met with an accident and suffered damage and was repaired by OP-2 by charging an amount of ₹70,605/- vide invoice (Annexure C-5) as repair charges and since the insurer/OP-1 has not paid even a single penny to the complainant and has wrongly closed the claim of the complainant on the ground that certain documents have not been submitted to OP-1, despite of the fact that the same have already been submitted to OP-1, the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action and the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
   4. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP-1/insurer contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant has not submitted the documents as requested by OP-1 through letters dated 18.5.2022 and 20.6.2022, as a result of which the claim was closed and as the complainant has failed to prove the cause of action, the consumer complaint is not maintainable and be dismissed.
   5. Perusal of certificate cum policy schedule i.e. the subject policy (Annexure C-1/R-1) clearly indicates that the same was valid w.e.f. 22.11.2021 to 21.11.2022 on payment of total premium of ₹18,729/- and the IDV of the subject car was ₹2,70,000/-.
   6. Annexure R-3 is copy of letter dated 27.7.2022 sent by OP-1 to the complainant through which the claim of the complainant was closed for non-supply of following information/documents :-

“*    Reason for delay in claim intimation

*      Please meet us with driver Dheeraj Kumar

*      Please meet us with Rajinder Singh whom you had given IV on lease since October 2021

*      IV driven details in OLA/Uber Taxi Company.

*      Property documents which your driver submit in court at the time of IV Supardari.”

 

7. Thus, one thing is clear from the aforesaid letter that the claim of the complainant was closed for non submission of certain documents as well as due to delay in claim intimation and the complainant could not arrange the appearance of Dheeraj Kumar, driver and Rajinder Singh.  However, from the grounds on which OP-1/insurer has closed the claim of the complainant, it appears that the OP started compelling the complainant to produce driver, Dheeraj Kumar and Rajinder Singh before the company for enquiring about the accident and such direction by OP-1 to the complainant otherwise shows that the same was even against the terms and conditions of the subject policy, especially when the surveyor was required to examine the aforesaid persons by visiting the spot and even non association of these persons by the surveyor during the survey shows that there was lack on the part of OP-1 and in order to cover that, OP-1 instead of settling the claim of the complainant started compelling him to produce the aforesaid persons.
8. So far as the reason for delay in claim intimation is concerned, as it stands proved on record that immediately after the accident, the informant Avtar Singh had reported the matter to the police in pursuance to which FIR (Annexure C-3) was registered and the police swung into action to investigate the case, leaving no room that the case of the complainant was suspicious or the complainant has not lodged genuine claim with the OP, especially when the surveyor, Naveen Kumar in his report (Annexure R-4) verified the facts during survey that the complainant was the registered owner of the subject car and the same was being driven by the driver who was possessing a valid driving licence and the same was valid w.e.f. 29.1.2021 to 3.10.2042.  Otherwise also, as it has come on record that the subject car was badly damaged in the accident and in the said accident one Balbir Singh has died and due to that reason the complainant could not immediately inform OP-1 about the accident, same cannot be a ground for closure of the claim by OP-1.
9. The other two grounds on which the claim of the complainant was closed also seems to be vague as details of OLA/UBER taxi company and property documents of the driver submitted by him at the time of sapurdari are not at all relevant for the settlement of the claim.
10. In view of the foregoing, it is unsafe to hold that the insurer/OP-1 was justified in closing the claim of the complainant and accordingly the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
11. So far as the quantum of relief to be granted to the complainant is concerned, complainant has come with the plea that he has spent an amount of ₹70,605/- towards the repair of the subject car, as is also evident from the tax invoice (Annexure C-5).  However, the said bill is disputed by OP-1 on the ground that the surveyor in his detailed report has assessed the liability of OP-1 at ₹52,750.17 (rounded off to ₹52,750/-) after applying necessary deduction, less excess clause etc.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that surveyor report is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weightage and can only be ignored if there is any other cogent evidence to the contrary.  Here we are strengthened by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2018 decided on 28.9.2021 in which it was held as under:-

       “38.  A Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject the surveyor’s report to forensic examination of its anatomy, just as a civil court could do. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop.”

 

Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) held as under:-

“The Report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight and relied upon until and unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence that the Report submitted could not be relied upon.”

Further the Hon’ble National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd., II (2023) CPJ 468 (NC) held as under:-

            “Insurance — Surveyors’ report — Survey and investigation are one of fundamentals in settling claim, and cannot and should not be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons, though it also goes concomitantly that survey or investigation should be convincing and pass test of credence in scrutiny — State Commission has not gone into contents of surveyors’ reports at all on ground that reports were filed belatedly before it — Reports were in any case available before State Commission and as such it ought to have examined their contents rather than dismissing them outright — Depending upon circumstances State Commission could have even imposed terms including cost for belatedly filing reports but to treat them as suspicious and to perfunctorily dismiss them outright merely because they were filed belatedly was not approach either justified or called for — No need to examine surveyors’ reports at this stage at any great length since both parties agree that settlement may be made on basis of respective surveyor’s assessment of actual loss in each case.”

The Hon’ble National Commission in Detco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (2023) CPJ 535 (NC) held as under:-

        “The Surveyor conducted a very detailed inspection of the premises and assessed the loss after due verification of documents. He assessed the total loss to the building, plant & machinery and furniture etc. at Rs.11,21,18,099/- after making necessary deductions of Rs.5,605,905/- towards excess clause and taking care of the process charges, debris removal, architects fee and goods held in trust arrived at the net adjusted loss of Rs.10,65,12,194/-. For every item, the Surveyor had explained the basis of arriving at the amount. The Complainant on the other hand had not placed any evidence to establish that the assessment made by the Surveyor was incorrect. The Complainant, therefore, cannot be allowed the amount beyond the assessment of the Surveyor. We see no reason not to agree with the assessment made by the Surveyor.”

13. In view of the foregoing discussion and the ratio of law laid down above, it is safe to hold that OP-1/ insurer is liable to pay to the complainant the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. ₹52,750/- alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment suffered by him.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹52,750/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closure of the claim i.e. 27.7.2022 onwards.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-2, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/01/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member