Punjab

Sangrur

CC/152/2015

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Ratol

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  152

                                                Instituted on:    20.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.08.2015

 

Ajit Singh son of Milkha Singh R/o VPO Bhumsi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Malerkotla through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For Opposite party   :       Shri L.K.Singal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Ajit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting his truck bearing registration number PB-13-AB-9377 insured by paying the requisite premium to the OP and the OP issued policy number 1117003113P106122068. It is further averred that the truck in question was purchased after getting the loan.  The case of the complainant is that the truck in question met with an accident on 24.7.2014 near Bhawanigarh and was badly damaged, intimation of which was given to Mr. Suresh Gupta, the agent of the OP and the Op appointed surveyor and as per the directions of the Ops the truck in question was shifted to M/s. New Daudharey Body Builders, Moga for the purpose of the repairs of the truck. Thereafter Shri Parveen Kumar Goyal was appointed for final survey. The complainant submitted all the documents and bills to the surveyor. Thereafter Mr. Charanjit Garg was also appointed by the OP for the purpose of re-inspection of the vehicle.  The complainant spent an amount of Rs.5,01,404/- on the repairs of the truck. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops paid nothing despite his repeated visits to the OP.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the Op be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,01,404/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, it is admitted that the truck in question was insured with the OP. It is further admitted that the truck in question met with an accident on 24.7.2014, however, it has been denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.5,01,404/-. It is stated that the surveyor assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.4,07,000/- and after deducting the depreciation of Rs.65,061/, the amount of Rs.3,23,000/- has rightly been paid to the complainant on 25.3.2015. It is stated further that the complainant without awaiting the payment filed the present complaint which is said to be premature.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 copy of letter, Ex.C-3 copy of account, Ex.C-4 affidavit, Ex.C-5 copy of policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of detail of loss, Ex.OP-2 copy of surveyor letter, Ex.OP-3 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-AB-9377 was insured with the OP vide policy, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, which is for the period from 22.12.2013 to 21.12.2014. It is further not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 24.7.2014 near Bhawanigarh and was badly damaged.  The Op after receiving intimation appointed Shri Parveen Kumar Goyal, surveyor and loss assessor who assessed the loss and submitted his report regarding loss of the vehicle.

 

6.             In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he spent an amount of Rs.5,01,404/- on the repairs of the truck in question, vide bill a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1. It is worth mentioning here that during the present proceedings of the complaint, the OP on 26.03.2015 transferred an amount of Rs.3,23,200/- on account of the claim amount i.e. by accepting the survey report to the tune of Rs.4,07,000/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.65,061/- on account of depreciation.  But, a bare perusal of the survey report of Shri Parveen Kumar Goyal, which is on record as Ex.OP-2, clearly reveals that he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,06,050/-and further assessed the salvage value as Rs.60050/- meaning thereby after reducing the salvage value of Rs.60050/-, the net amount payable to the complainant comes to Rs.3,46,000/-, but in the present case, the Op has paid only an amount of Rs.3,23,200/- on 26.03.2015 i.e. the OP paid Rs.22,800/- less than the due amount as per the survey report itself.  Further there is no justification on record that why the OP withheld an amount of Rs.22,800/- belonging to the complainant.  Under these circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.22,800/- from the complainant.    

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.22,800/- along with interest @9% per annum from 26.03.2015 till realisation. We further direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member