Haryana

Ambala

CC/49/2017

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Sehgal

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA.

C.C.No.49 of 2017.

Date of Instt.:09.02.2017.

Date of Order: 23.08.2018.

 

Parveen Kumar son of Sh.Asanand Kalra resident of house No.39-A, Sector 1 Jail Land, Ambala City.

                                                                   ..Complainant.

           Versus

1. The United India Insurance Company Limited Bal Bhawan Road Polytechnic Chow, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

2.    The United India Insurance Company  Limited Ambala Cantt. through its Divisional Manager.   

                                                                   …Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                  

Present:       Sh.Sudhir Sehgal, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Vig, counsel for the OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-37-D-1533 insured with OP No.1vide policy No.11082/31/14/01/00000357 on 10.06.2014 having validity upto 09.06.2015. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and he got the same repaired from City Automobiles on 25.08.2016. The authorized representative/surveyor of the OPs inspected the vehicle in the workshop and also clicked the photographs. The bill for the repairs was Rs.2,35,000/-. The complainant deposited the documents alongwith bill to the OPs but Op No.1 did not make the payment thereof. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. In evidence, the complainant has affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C13.

2.                On notice Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the insurance company has already deposited an amount of Rs.1,11,500/- in favour of City Automobiles as repair charges and regarding this the complainant has given undertaking.  As per complainant the vehicle got damaged on 21.08.2014 and the surveyor had prepared the report on the basis of actual and physical verification and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,82,568/- and the surveyor also re-inspected the vehicle and confirmed all parts replaced and labour job done and the claim was recommended for approval of Rs.1,82,568 (-) Rs.21,159 labour bill not given (-) salvage value Rs.8568 i.e. total Rs.1,52,850/-. The City Automobiles had not produced the purchased bill of the parts being second hand purchase of cabin, therefore, the loss come to Rs.1,36,188/- and the liability was for Rs.1,11,500/- after deduction of salvage. The settlement intimation voucher was executed as full and final settlement of the claim which solved the issue finality for all times. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R12.

3.                Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused carefully.

4.                It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased motor vehicle policy on 10.06.2014 having validity upto 09.06.2015. During the  subsistence of the policy the vehicle met with an accident on 25.08.2014 and the vehicle was got repaired from City Automobiles by the complainant by spending Rs.2,35,000/-. The surveyor had inspected the vehicle and considered the estimate and assessed the loss amounting to Rs.1,82,568/- but OP has got re-inspected the vehicle from other surveyor vide Addendum  report and disallowed the amount of Rs.70322/- of the cabin accessory and only allowed Rs.25,000/- and surveyor also deducted the labour charges which was assessed by first surveyor to the tune of Rs.21150/-. The main grievance of the complainant is that OPs have wrongly deducted the cabin accessory amount to the tune of Rs.70110-25000=45110/- and OPs have also not given even single panny of labour charges and straight away deducted the amount of Rs.21150/-. First surveyor also assessed the labour charges Rs.21150/-. It is very strange factor that the Addendum report given by the second surveyor how he can deduct the whole labour charges as assessed by the first surveyor. From the perusal of Addendum report surveyor has allowed only second hand cabin accessory amount. The report prepared by the surveyor on imaginary grounds without getting the assessment from the repairer and even no reason has been mentioned in the report. Undisputedly, the cabin was changed but it is strange that both the surveyor had given different views as first surveyor had clearly rejected the whole cabin amount and other surveyor had given Rs.25,000/- by mentioning the cabin as second hand. As per repair bill Annexure C4 given by City Automobiles amount of the cabin accessory has been shown Rs.70110/-, they have   changed the cabin but both the surveyor have not clearly mentioned in their reports cabin accessory was not changed. It is also proved on the file from cash receipt issued by City Automobiles that an amount of Rs.2,33,500/- has been spent by the complainant for repairing of the insured vehicle on dated 03.01.2015.

                             From the above said discussion it is clear that the OPs have wrongly deducted the cabin accessory amount of Rs.45110/- and also illegally not given the labour charges to the tune of Rs.21150/- duly assessed by the surveyor, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the same from the OPs.  The present complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- and the OPs are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.45110/- and Rs.21150/- total amount of Rs.45110+21150= 66260/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % from the date of paying the amount to the City Automobiles i.e. on 03.01.2015 till its realization. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

 

Announced: 23.08.2018

                                                                                      

                            

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                                     (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                                                                   President