BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 259 of 2017                                                                      

                                                           Date of Institution         :    13.10.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :    16.2.2018.

Om Parkash aged about 61 years son of Shri Hans Raj, resident of H. No. 1427, Gali Mandir Baba Khetarpal Wali, Mandi Kalanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, having its office at Divyam Complex, Global Hospital, Dabwali Road, Distt. Sirsa.

  ...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

          SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Sunny Babbar,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle Renault Duster bearing registration No. HR-26CB/ 4250 and the complainant got insured the same from opposite party vide insurance policy No.1119003116P107833328 and the op had charged sufficient amount from the complainant regarding the insurance of his vehicle. Under this policy, the accidental as well as other damages of the vehicle were/ are covered. That after the purchase of said policy on 2.8.2017, the complainant was coming from village Rori to Mandi Kalanwali on his aforesaid vehicle which was being driven by the complainant. On the way to Kalanwali, all of a sudden a stray dog came in front of the vehicle on account of which he lost his control over the vehicle and resultantly the vehicle met with a roadside accident and was damaged. That after the accident, the vehicle was taken to his house and the service centre of the vehicle was informed about the accident and on the basis of information of the same, the officials of the service centre visited the house of complainant and took the possession of the vehicle and the same was taken to the service centre. The opposite party insurance company was also informed about the accident and the surveyor of op visited the service centre and inspected the vehicle. On inspection, it was asked by the surveyor that the complainant should get the same repaired from the service centre and necessary parts of the vehicle should be replaced. It was assured that after the necessary repairs, the amount so incurred by the complainant shall be refunded to him by the op company. It is further averred that believing upon the assurance made by the surveyor of the op, the complainant got the vehicle repaired from the service centre and necessary parts were got replaced by him and an amount of Rs.72566/- was demanded by the service centre as bill for repair which was duly paid by the complainant. That the complainant thereafter taken the possession of the vehicle from the service centre and informed about the fact of making the payment of Rs.72566/- to the insurance company upon which he was asked by the op company to wait for a short period and promised to indemnify the claim of the complainant soon. That sometime thereafter the complainant received a telephonic call from the op vide which he was informed that his claim has been indemnified and he was further asked to put his personal appearance in the office of the company to receive the amount of claim. The complainant visited the office of the insurance company and requested to make the payment of the said amount but to the surprise of the complainant, the op was making the payment of Rs.40,047/- only whereas as per the insurance policy, the complainant was/is legally entitled to a total sum of Rs.72,566/- as paid by him on account of repair charges. The complainant requested the op to make the payment of entire amount but the op simply stated that he should receive the said amount otherwise his claim would not be indemnified rather the same shall be repudiated by making false excuse. That such act and conduct on the part of op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, humiliation and hardship. The complainant approached the op a number of times by making personal visits and requested to indemnify his claim but the op kept on avoiding the request of complainant on one false pretext or the other and now about two days ago, the op has flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and that claim lodged by complainant has already been fully and finally settled/ decided by the op and the settled amount has already been paid by op to the complainant and complainant has duly executed full and final settlement/satisfaction voucher in favour of the answering op. So, there was/is no deficiency in service on the part of answering op. On merits, it is submitted that on receipt of the information about the fact of accident of insured vehicle, the final survey of the vehicle was carried out by Shri Madan Lal Garg, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who inspected the said vehicle of the complainant and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.42,048.15/- as per terms and conditions of policy. The rate of depreciation was charged as per model/ date of purchase of vehicle as mentioned in Section-I of the policy. It is further submitted that as per report furnished by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, the claim of the complainant was settled. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the vehicle of complainant to the tune of Rs.42,048.15 and after deducting a sum of Rs.2,000/- for salvage, the remaining amount of Rs.40,048/- has already been remitted to the complainant, which the complainant has accepted the same without any objection. The complainant while accepting the payment of aforesaid amount, duly executed full and final settlement letter in favour of op. The complainant is not entitled to the sum of Rs.72,566/- as claimed by him. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of settlement intimation voucher Ex.C1, copy of tax invoice Ex.C2, copy of registration certificate Ex.C3, copy of pass book Ex.C4, copy of voter identity card Ex.C5 and copy of insurance cover note Ex.C6. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. K.R. Jain, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R1, copy of assessment sheet summary Ex.R2, copy of certificate Ex.R3, copy of letter Ex.R4, copy of email Ex.R5, copy of claim intimation Ex.R6, copy of motor survey report Ex.R7, copy of motor claim form Ex.R8, copy of satisfaction voucher Ex.R9, copy of acceptance letter Ex.R10, copy of consent letter Ex.R11, copy of insurance cover note Ex.R12 and copy of registration certificate Ex.R13.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                Learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that it is proved fact on record that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.HR-26CB/ 4250 was insured with the opposite party and said vehicle met with an accident on 2.8.2017. Due intimation was given to opposite party and claim was lodged for a sum of Rs.72566/- which was paid by complainant to the repairer as repair was carried out at the asking of the surveyor of the company but however, the op has made payment of Rs.40,047/- only. Non payment of the difference amount clearly amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy and deficiency in service on the part of the op towards the complainant.

6.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has contended that no doubt the vehicle was insured with the opposite party and claim was lodged for the accident of the vehicle and matter was referred to the surveyor who inspected the vehicle before repair and after repair of the vehicle and submitted his detailed report and thereafter a sum of Rs.40,047/- was paid to the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service as complainant had issued satisfaction voucher, acceptance letter and consent letter as Ex,R9 to Ex.R11 and there is no other liability of the insurance company of any kind towards the complainant.

7.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

8.                The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also relied upon documents i.e. copy of settlement intimation voucher Ex.C1, copy of tax invoice Ex.C2, copy of registration certificate Ex.C3, copy of pass book Ex.C4, copy of voter identity card Ex.C5 and copy of insurance cover note Ex.C6. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished affidavit of Sh. K.R. Jain, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the written statement and also relied upon documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R13.

9.                It is undisputed fact between the parties that vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party and vehicle met with an accident on 2.8.2017 and loss was caused to the vehicle, as a result of which due intimation was given to opposite party. It is further undisputed fact between the parties that claim was lodged which was  processed and Sh. M.L. Garg was appointed as Surveyor who inspected the vehicle before repair and after repair and submitted his report Ex.R7 on record. The perusal of the record reveals that the Surveyor Sh. M.L. Garg has not furnished his affidavit in support of his report which he has submitted as Ex.R7. The report of the Surveyor reveals that he has shown total costs of the parts to the tune of Rs.93,324.80 and has given details of the parts which have been got replaced by the complainant from the repairer. The Surveyor’s report further reveals that surveyor has shown Rs.5577.34 as cost of the radiator under head Rubber and similarly has shown that labour charges was claimed as Rs.4900/- but however he has approved Rs.3894/- and further surveyor has deducted depreciation of the repair parts at the rate of 50% and also deducted the depreciation of the metal parts at the rate of 35% which does not appear to be genuine and it needs reconsideration since the complainant has claimed loss to the tune of Rs.72,566/- which he has paid to the repairer but however the op has made offer of Rs.40,047/-. The record further reveals that op has relied upon the satisfaction voucher Ex.R9 which reveals that column of Ex.R9 has been filled in haste and hot manner. In the column of name of repairer, name of complainant has been mentioned. Like Ex.R9, column of Ex.R10 i.e. acceptance letter are quite blank but it bears signatures of Om Parkash and the consent letter Ex.R11 also bears the signatures of Om Parkash but however learned counsel for opposite party has failed to explain as to why column of Ex.R10 were left blank and why the column of Ex.R9 were filled inadvertently. So, it appears that signatures of the complainant were obtained by surveyor on these blank papers which is not sufficient to presume that complainant had settled his claim as full and final with the opposite party rather that put the shadow of doubt regarding the settlement of the claim of the complainant. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op has stated at bar that company has already paid an amount of Rs.40,047/- to the complainant on account of full and final settlement but however he has not denied the defects in Ex.R9 and Ex.R10 which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

10.              In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to reassess and recalculate the loss of the vehicle after going through the requisite record and the report of the surveyor and pass a fresh order for assessment of the loss and thereafter settle and pay the amount/claim, if any which may become due against the op after deducting the payment already made to the complainant. The op is directed to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the op shall be liable to pay the amount alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the op to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                                President,

Dated:16.02.2018.                                      Member                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.