BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 105 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 19.02.2020.
Date of Decision : 10.04.2024.
Inderjeet Dhingra, aged about 66 years son of Sh. Mulkh Raj Dhingra, resident of Bhagat Singh Colony, Barnala road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., near Ridhi Sidhi Lab, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through General Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K. Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to OP).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had filed a consumer complaint which was allowed on 30.04.2019 and the ops sent the file to the Surveyor for reexamination. The ops sent a letter bearing No. 489/09/07/19 dated 08.07.2019 alongwith report of surveyor to the complainant which are wrong and against law and facts and they have not done justice with him. As such the report of Surveyor is liable to be rejected and original complaint of complainant may be allowed, the facts of which are that complainant is a retired professor. The complainant got insured his Chevrolet Beat car model 2012 bearing registration No. HR-24Q/6205 from ops and its insured amount was Rs.2,00,000/- and the period of policy was effective from 28.03.2017 to 22.08.2018. It is further averred that the said car of complainant met with an accident on 29.03.2018 and complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,70,840/- as per bills which were paid by him on account of repair but the op after deduction paid only amount of Rs.54,744/- to the complainant which was received by him under protest. That op deducted 40% amount of iron material and 50% amount of rubber material. The labour charges were of Rs.39,200/- but the op paid only amount of Rs.26,200/- to the complainant which is also wrong because no deduction can be made towards labour charges and there is no depreciation to that amount. It is further averred that similarly from the another bill of Rs.39,000/- which was also of labour charges, the amount of Rs.13,000/- was wrongly deducted and complainant was paid only an amount of Rs.23,400/-and the articles R.L. Door, A.C. compressor and roof and the disposal which were old material were inserted and same were already of half rates and as such no depreciation is applicable on old articles. That one bill of the amount of Rs.2500/- was of crane which took away the accidental vehicle to the workshop but that bill was also not paid and in this way the ops have paid less amount of Rs.31,100/- whereas they have not challenged deduction on remaining bills in which deduction of 40% on account of metal material and 50% on account of rubber material was made. It is further averred that besides the amount of Rs.31,100/- the complainant is also entitled for compensation from op as op has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to him. That earlier complaint was got dismissed as withdrawn on technical ground with permission to file fresh complaint. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is neither maintainable, nor sustainable either in the eyes of law or on facts. That intimation regarding the accidental loss of Car was received by insurance company and accordingly Shri Ravi Aggarwal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed who has conducted the survey in the presence of complainant/ insured and asked him to start repair proceedings as the car was repairable. On 13.06.2018 Surveyor submitted his final report to the company assessing loss of the car worth Rs.54,744/- as per terms and conditions of insurance policy. Accordingly the insurance company has paid the above said loss to the complainant and accordingly his claim has already been satisfied as he has received this amount with his own entire satisfaction. That complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. Earlier the complainant has filed the complaint which has been decided on 30.04.2019 and in compliance to the said order, insurance company has deputed Shri N.K. Gupta Surveyor and Loss Assessor to further re-assess the loss to the Car and re-examine and re-evaluate the bills of the new parts, old parts as well as labour charges. Shri N.K. Gupta after giving a notice to the complainant further re-assessed the loss and submitted his report to company on 28.06.2019 in which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.54,709/- and the company has already paid Rs.54,744/- to the complainant and as such the company has already paid him excess amount and complainant has already been satisfied as he has received this amount with his own entire satisfaction. It is further submitted that depreciation was deduction as per terms and conditions of the policy and as per assessment of the Surveyor. That insured had alleged that two bills have been partly deducted by insurance company. As regard bills for the repair, it is submitted that insurance company is liable for the labour work of the accidental portion only and not liable for extra work got conducted by the insured and bill is/ was settled by the Surveyor with the repairer. It is further submitted that as regard bill of Rs.39,000/- it is submitted that this bill is for R.L. Door, A.C. Compressor and Roof upper but AC compressor was not damaged and the insured has not submitted any estimate for the same. That insured has submitted the estimate for the roof panel for Rs.8100/- only and he has submitted the bills for roof upper for Rs.28,500/- which is not acceptable. The Surveyor has allowed Rs.3000/- for the roof upper for disposal part, as this part is valued only for Rs.3000/- and in this manner no depreciation has been made by the Surveyor in roof upper. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
5. On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajender Kamboj, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R20.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. From the policy placed on file by op itself as Ex.R2, it is evident that car in question of complainant was insured with it for the period 23.08.2017 to 22.08.2020 for the sum insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said insured car of complainant during the period of policy in question met with an accident on 29.03.2018. The complainant has alleged that he has spent an amount of Rs.1,70,840/- on the repair of his insured car but the op even after passing of the order dated 30.04.2019 passed in earlier complaint has settled the claim of complainant only for an amount of Rs.54,744/-. According to complainant though deduction by the op to the extent of 40% on metal material and 50% on rubber material is wrong and illegal but they are not challenging said deduction but however, the deduction made on labour charges is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside. The complainant has also alleged that op has also not paid crane charges to him. As such complainant has restricted his claim to the tune of Rs.31,100/- deducted on account of labour charges and crane charges and is not challenging deduction on the parts which were replaced. In this regard, from the perusal of surveyor reports of both the Surveyors, it is evident that against labour charges of Rs.39,200/- the Surveyors after deduction of Rs.11,500/- further made deduction of the amount of Rs.1500/- on account of depreciation on paint material and approved the amount of Rs.26,200/- which is not justified because huge repair work of the car was done and as such depreciation in labour charges is not justified. However, against the amount of Rs.2500/- being crane charges, an amount of Rs.2000/- has been approved by op on the basis of above said reports. In so far as payment of another amount of Rs.15,600/- towards estimate of Rs.39,000/- is concerned, we are of the view that op has rightly deducted amount of Rs.23,400/- because against the bill amount of Rs.28,500/- regarding roof upper, the disposal part of Rs.3000/- was applied and AC compressor worth Rs.8000/- was not changed because same was not damaged. As such we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.13,000/- only deducted from one bill amount of Rs.39,200/- and complainant is also claiming that amount as per his affidavit Ex.CW1/A whereas the amount of crane charges has already been approved to the extent of Rs.2000/-.
8. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the remaining amount of Rs.13,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.02.2020 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 10.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
