Punjab

Sangrur

CC/639/2014

Shri Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramit Pathak

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

       

                                               

                                                Complaint No.    639

                                                Instituted on:      01.12.2014

                                                Decided on:       28.04.2015

 

 

Shri Chand son of Bant Singh, resident of House No.1071, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Ludhiana.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited with its Branch Office Near Bombay Cloth House, Dhurkot Chowk, Ahmedgarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Advocate.

For OP                      :       Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Mr. Shri Chand, 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 being the owner of Chevrolet Spark car bearing registration number PB-10-CE-0368 got insured the same from the OP for the period from 11.11.2012 to 10.11.2013 for Rs.1,59,900/- under policy number 2006023112P300902779.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident and damaged and the complainant also suffered multiple injuries, of which FIR number 35 of 2013 was duly registered by the police of PS Dehlon, District Ludhiana regarding the accident.

 

2.             It is further averred that after the accident, the car in question was shifted to Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,27,508/-.  It is further averred that the surveyor and the OP were of the opinion that this is a case of total loss as such the company will pay the amount of insurance of new car. It is further averred that thereafter all the documents were submitted to the OP, but despite that the OP did not settle the claim of the complainant and failed to pay the claim amount despite repeated visits to the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,63,438/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of loss till payment, besides payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension and harassment has been claimed.

 

3.             In reply, it is admitted that the car in question was insured with the OP for the period from 11.11.2012 to 10.11.2013 for Rs.1,59,900/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further admitted that after receipt of the intimation regarding accident, the OP appointed Shri Brij Mohan, surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted his spot report dated 14.2.2013.  It is further averred that after receiving the spot report, the Op appointed M/s. Kapoor & Company, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the final loss, who assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,04,881/- as total loss after deducting depreciation @ 50% on non metal parts and 40% on metal parts.  He also deducted Rs.1000/- regarding policy clause and Rs.3500/- on account of salvage value and finally the net amount payable was found to be Rs.1,01,381/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The surveyor sent the letters to the complainant for submitting the documents, but nothing was submitted by the complainant despite reminder letter dated 16.4.2013, 29.6.2013, 7.8.2013 and 2.10.2013. It is further averred that the complainant did not submit the repair bill to the OP to proceed further into the matter. It is further mentioned that the complainant has failed to get repaired the vehicle in question, as such he is not entitled to get any claim from the OP.  The other allegations in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of FIR, Ex.C-4 copy of letter, Ex.C-5 copy of RIC, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-7 copy of invoice, Ex.C-8 copy of estimate, Ex.C-9 coy of DL, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-11 reports and Ex.C-12 copy of compromise and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of policy, Ex.OP-2 survey report, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-8 copies of letters, Ex.OP-9 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-10 copy of letter, Ex.OP-11 affidavit and Ex.OP-12 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             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 acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the car bearing registration number PB-10-CE-0368 is insured with the OP under the policy in question for the period from 11.11.2012 to 10.11.2013.  It is also an admitted fact that the car in question was insured for Rs.1,59,900/- only with the OP.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy near Grewal Petrol Pump, Village Sai Kalan, of which FIR number 35 of 2013 was duly registered by the police of P.S. Dehlon, District Ludhiana.   It is also not in dispute that the intimation regarding accident of the vehicle in question was duly given to the OP, who appointed M/s. Kapoor and Company, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,01,381/- after deducting the depreciation and policy clause as well as salvage value of the vehicle. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though the vehicle in question was insured with the OP, but the Op did not pay the insurance claim of Rs.3,69,438/- despite submission of all the documents to the OP as the vehicle was treated as total loss.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has vehemently contended that the claim of the complainant has not been paid due to his own negligence, as he failed to get the vehicle repaired from the repairer and further to submit the repair bill in question to the OP, for the settlement of the claim, despite the fact the surveyor of the OP/company M/s. Kapoor and Company written so many letters to the complainant, which are on record as Ex.OP1/3, Ex.OP1/4, Ex.OP1/5, Ex.OP1/6, Ex.OP1/7 and Ex.OP1/8.  But, the complainant did not reply the same.   Whereas the stand of the complainant is that he did not reply the letters to the OP as the OP was duty bound to settle the claim on total loss basis, as such, the question to get the car repaired from the repairer does not arise at all.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact on record that the vehicle in question has not been got repaired by the complainant from the repairer.   A bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.3,69,438/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the OP, but we failed to understand how he has claimed such a huge amount, whereas the vehicle in question is insured for the total value of Rs.1,59,900/- only as admitted by himself in the complaint as well as is evident from the copy of insurance policy, which is on record as Ex.OP1/1.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has even not produced the complete Photostat copy of insurance policy and has intentionally produced on record the very first page of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2. As such, it is advisable that the complainant should claim the maximum insured amount of Rs.1,59,900/- only and not Rs.3,69,438/- as claimed in this case. Ex.OP1/9 is the copy of final survey report dated 25.10.2013 conducted by M/s. Kapoor and Company, wherein the liability of the insurance company on repair basis has been held as Rs.1,01,381/-.  Further to support such a contention, affidavit of Er. A.S.Kapoor is also on record as Ex.OP1/12, wherein the complete details of the survey report has been mentioned.  As such, we feel that the fact remains that the vehicle of the complainant was insured which suffered loss and the claim was not paid by the OP due to any reason, the complainant is entitled to get the claim for the loss suffered by the car in question.

       

9.             In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the claim of the complainant is allowed to the tune of Rs.1,01,381/- only as assessed by the surveyor in his survey report dated 25.10.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1/9 though the complainant has not got repaired the vehicle in question yet from the repairer.    

 

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,01,381/- along with interest @ 9% per annum form the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 1.12.2014 till realisation. OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

11.            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.

                April 28, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member