Haryana

Ambala

CC/293/2018

Jatinder Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII Co - Opp.Party(s)

U.S. Chauhan

13 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  293 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  04.09.2018

                                                          Date of decision   :  13.05.2019

Sh.Jatinder  Chauhan son of Sh. Dharam Pal Chauhan resident of Khasra  No.485, Mahavir Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana

……. Complainant.                  

                                           Vs.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd through its Branch Office at 2^nd Floor, Tirloki Chambers, Opp. Municipal Committee, Ambala Cantt.

 

….…. Opposite Party

  

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

Coram:       Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

.

                            

Present:       Sh. U.S.Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:         Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                   The complainant filed this complaint against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short Act). The admitted facts are that the complainant is registered owner  of Motor Car bearing registration No.HR01-AF-3800 and the same was insured with the OP from 31.10.2016 to 30.10.2017 vide policy no.1101003116P110179636, Annexure C-1. However, the requisite premium of Rs.9,250/- is admittedly paid. At the time of issuance insurance cover of the car in question, the OP assessed the IDV value as Rs.Four Lacs. The insurance was also zero depreciation insurance for which the OP also charged an additional premium of Rs.1818.87.The insurance was valid for throughout the year i.e. from 31.10.2016 to 30.10.2017. As per the clause relating to zero depreciation, the complainant was required to pay only compulsory deductable amount of Rs.1,000/-, if car of the complainant met with an accident and said insurance was also a cashless insurance.  On 31.08.2017, the car of the complainant met with an accident at Gurugram and the same was driven by the driver of the complainant. The car of the complainant was brought to the workshop of the M/s City Automobiles, Ambala and the intimation regarding the accident was given to the OP. The OP deputed the surveyor to assess the loss of the car in question. The survey was conducted at M/s City Automobiles, Ambala City. The workshop gave the estimate of repair amounting to Rs.17,644/- but the surveyor of the OP only approved Rs.15,285/- (Annexure C-2 )as claim for repairing  the car in question. As per the confirmation and approval of the claim, the car was repaired by the said workshop at Ambala. After the repair of the said car, the complainant took the delivery of the car after paying an amount of Rs.15,285/- to the workshop as approved by the OP. The complainant submitted the original bill of the repaired car along with the other formalities to the officer of the OP for processing of the claim of the car in question. The complainant got shocked when he received the payment of Rs.8,248/- against the bill of repair of Rs.15,285/-which was actual payment made to the workshop after the approval and confirmation of the OP. The complainant was entitled  to get an amount of Rs.14,285/- after deducting Rs.1000/- as per clause of zero depreciation. The OP, without giving any plausible reason deducted an amount of Rs.6,037/- out of entire claim amount as approved to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant filed the complaint against the OP for payment of Rs.6,037/- alongwith interest 18%p.a., Rs.50,000/-as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.5,500/- as cost of proceedings. Hence, the present complaint.

 

2.               On admission of the complaint, notice was given to the OP, who in its written version by taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as per claim form which was signed by the complainant, the car No.HR01-AK-3800 was hit by the Auto from the Backside and got damaged. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,248/- which was accepted by the complainant. As per the survey report, the front bumper was not damaged. However, the car in question was damaged from the backside but the complainant is claiming the claim for damage of front bumper. Thus, the claim of the complainant qua front bumper was rightly repudiated by the OP. On merits, the OP had admitted that car bearing registration no.HR-01-3800 met with an accident. But the same was hit from back-side, which fact is not mentioned in the complaint. The main objection of the OP is that the car in question was hit from the back side by the Auto and surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,248/- which was accepted by the OP after deducting Rs.1,000/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. The OP has rightly passed the claim of Rs.8,248/-. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                Both the parties were afforded reasonable opportunity to lead their evidence to substantiate the version made into the complaint and written version respectively. Both the parties led their respective evidence.

4.                To prove his version the complainant tendered affidavit Annexure C/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP, tendered affidavit, Annexure OP/A along with documents, Annexure OP-1 to OP-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP for the period 31.10.2016 to 30.10.2017. It is also not disputed that vehicle in question met with an accident on 31.08.2017 during the subsistence of the policy and the complainant intimated the OP about accident. The OP had deputed the surveyor to assess the loss of the car in question but there is no spot inspection report as well as no photographs of the damaged vehicle at site of accident. The survey was conducted at M/s City Automobiles, Ambala City and the workshop  has given the estimate of repair amounting to Rs.17,644/- but the surveyor of the OP has only approved Rs.15,285/- as claim for repairing the car in question as alleged by the complainant. After the repair of the said car, the complainant has taken the delivery of the car after paying an amount of Rs.15,285/- to the workshop. The complainant had received the payment of Rs.8,248/- only against the bill of repair of Rs.15,285/-which is actual payment made to the complainant after having unconditionally accepted the claim amount, the complainant cannot re-agitate this matter before this Forum. The counsel for the complainant has argued that it has been clearly mentioned in the surveyor report that the vehicle was examined for accidental visible damages, the damages are frontal. Due to accident the rear side damaged. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has argued that in the observation, opinion and recommendation, it has been mentioned that given by the surveyor in his survey report, Annexure OP-1.

6.                In the case in hand, the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to establish that the estimate was prepared after approval of the surveyor. Moreover, there is nothing on the case file to brush aside the report of the surveyor. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a case H.C.Saxena Versus New India Assurance Co. & Anr. 2012 (1) CPC 632 has held that “Report of surveyor is an important document prepared under the legal provisions and should not be brushed aside without reasons.” Hon’ble National Commission in other case titled as D.N. Badoni Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) CPC 528 again has held that “The Surveyor report should not be ignored in which the amount of claim has rightly been determined.” The above-said law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi is fully applicable to the present case as in the present case.  

7.                In view of the abovesaid factual position and legal position, the complaint filed by complainant deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

Announced on :13.05.2019

 

 

 

                    (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)             

           Member                                      Member