Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1501/2015

Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K.Verma

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                       

                                                Complaint No.  1501

                                                Instituted on:    19.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.07.2016

 

Jasvir Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of VPO Ruldu Singh Wala, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :               Shri V.K.Verma, Adv.

For OP                     :               Shri L.K.Singla, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jasvir 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 obtained the services of the OP by getting insured his Nissan Micra car bearing registration number PB-13-AF-1430 vide policy number 1117053114P110099775 for the period from 19.2.2015 to 18.2.2016 and the policy in question was zero debt cab cashless policy. It is further averred that the car of the complainant met with an accident at Malerkotla on 16.5.2015 and damaged badly and after the accident the complainant gave intimation to the OP regarding the accident. Thereafter the OP appointed surveyor and on the instructions of the surveyor the complainant took his car to DADA Motors, who raised the bill for Rs.92,986/- and the complainant paid the said amount to the repairer from his own pocket. It is further averred that on 27.8.2015, the complainant received an amount of Rs.77,400/- in his account and as such the complainant requested the OP to pay the remaining amount of Rs.15,586/-, but the OP refused to pay the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay him the remaining amount of Rs.15,586/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In the reply filed by the OP, it is admitted that the car in question was insured with the OP. It has been denied that the said policy was cashless and the surveyor asked the complainant to get the car repaired from DADA Motors. It is further stated that the surveyor assessed and recommended the loss to the tune of Rs.82,558/-. However, in the plastic part, the surveyor assessed amount of cover belt back Rs.4847.76. In checking it was found that in estimate, which was provided by DADA Motors, price of cover belt back is claimed as Rs.972/-, therefore after deducing excess amount i.e. Rs.4847.46 by Rs.972/- the amount of plastic parts is payable to Rs.12829/- instead of Rs.17259.24. Similar in surveyor has wrongly assessed Rs.600/-, because refilling gas is not payable by the company, as AC gas refilling is also deductable so in head of labour charges Rs.30786.64 is payable instead of Rs.31460.80, thus the amount of Rs.77,400/- has rightly been paid by the OP to the complainant.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 copy of driving license, Ex.C-4 copy of RO billing, Ex.C-5 copy of receipt of payment, Ex.C-6 copy of bank statement, Ex.C-7 copy of RC and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1  affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of assessment sheet, Ex.OP-3 copy of estimate sheet, Ex.OP-4 copy of supplementary estimate, Ex.OP-5 copy of bill, Ex.OP-6 copy of calculation sheet and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the car of the complainant bearing registration number PB-13-AF-1430 was insured with the OP for the period from 19.2.2015 to 18.2.2016. It is further not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 16.5.2016, information of which was given to the OP and accordingly on the instructions of the surveyor the complainant got repaired the car from M/s. DADA Motors, who charged Rs.92,986/-, but the OP paid only an amount of Rs.77,400/- to the complainant  and withheld an amount of Rs.15,586/- without assigning any reasons, as such, the complainant has claimed this amount of Rs.15,586/- by filing the present complaint. On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the surveyor of the OP assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.82,558/-, however, on checking the survey report, it was found that the surveyor wrongly assessed the mount of cover belt back as Rs.4847.76 instead of Rs.972/- as claimed by the complainant in the estimate and further the refilling of gas was not payable as such, the amount of Rs.600/- was deducted and further under the head labour charges Rs.30786.64 were payable instead of Rs.31460.80, as such, the OP has rightly paid the amount of Rs.77,400/- and this fact was thoroughly explained to the complainant whenever he visited the OP to get the details about the claim.  As such, it is stated that nothing is payable more to the complainant.  We have very carefully perused the whole of the evidence and record produced on the file and found that the Op has rightly paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.77,400/- and the deductions therein have rightly been made as is evident from the calculation sheet document, which is on record as Ex.OP-6.  Under the circumstances, we find nothing wrong on the part of the OP and further find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 12, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member