BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.36 of 2019.
Date of institution:-12.02.2019.
Date of decision : - 06.03.2020
Pankaj Parkash son of Shri Anand Parkash resident of Hanuman Gate, Parjapati Gali, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021 (India).
...Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited, Having its registered at # 24, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600014 (India) through its Manager having its micro office at village Bhiwani Khera, District Bhiwani.
…Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh. Nagender Singh, President.
Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member
Present: Sh.Pawan Kumar Badwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OP.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of vehicle car Grand I10 bearing registration No.HR-16N-5206 and the same was insured with opposite party vide policy No.1112823117P103526149 (Zero Depreciation & Cashless Insurance). On 12.11.2017, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged in Mayur Vihar, New Delhi. The vehicle was brought to nears Nimbus Motors (Hyundai) centre by Crain on the same day after making the charges to the tune of Rs.1500/-. Due intimation was given to the opposite party and Mr.Vijay Kumar was appointed as surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and thereafter the repairing of the vehicle was got done. The insurance company had refused to pay the bill of Rs.38795/- for repairing of the vehicle. The complainant requested the opposite party to pay the claim amount but the insurance company has paid only Rs.30300/- out of the total amount of Rs.39296/- after wrongly deducting Rs.9496/-. The complainant requested the opposite party to pay remaining amount and also got served legal notice but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal, estoppal, locus standi and suppression of material facts from this Forum etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that on intimation about the accident and damage of the insured vehicle, the insurance company had deputed the surveyor, who after inspecting the vehicle in his report dated 14.05.2018 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.30,300/-. The assessed amount had already been paid to the complainant and he was not entitled for cashless facility as per the insurance policy. Moreover, no receipt of the driver/owner was produced with regard to payment of towing charge but despite that the surveyor had allowed Rs.1000/- for towing the vehicle. The amount shown in the invoice/bill was very much inflated, imaginary and without any basis. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying opposite party. Other contentions have been controvered and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. The complainant has submitted replication/ rejoinder whereby the averments made in the complaint have been reiterated and the grounds mentioned in the reply has been controverted.
4. The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C17 and closed the evidence on 05.08.2019 whereas the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure PW1/A and document Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on 26.11.2019.
4. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance by submitting his written synopsis whereas the counsels for opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. It is admitted fact that the complainant had taken the insurance policy in respect of vehicle bearing No.HR16-N-5206 on Nil Depreciation without excess clause (Annexure C4). The damage to the car on 12.11.2017, during the subsistence of the policy, is also not denied by the opposite party. The plea of the complainant is that the opposite party has not paid the full amount to the tune of Rs.39796/- spent on the repairing of the insured vehicle as well as crane charges despite the fact that the insurance policy (Annexure C4) purchased by him from the insurance company was zero depreciation without excess and this amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. On the other hand, the stand of opposite party is that the loss assessed by the surveyor in his report Annexure R1, to the tune of Rs.30,000/- including crane charges, has already been paid to the complainant as full and final settlement, therefore, nothing is to be paid to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. Learned counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the case law titled as Garg Acrylics Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited CLT 2015 (1) CLT 286 (NC) wherein it has been by Hon’ble National Commission that Insurance Plan-Survey report- surveyor without any allegation of ill will or malice appears to be a sterling witness.
6. It is established on the case file that the policy purchased by the complainant was Zero Depreciation without excess and when the damage occurred to the insured vehicle the same was got repaired by the complainant from authorized Hyundai service centre by spending a sum of Rs.38295/- as is evident through Annexure C5. Though the opposite party has come with the plea that payment of Rs.30,300/- to the complainant has made, as per the report of surveyor, as full and final settlement but this plea is not tenable. Perusal of the report Annexure R1 shows that the surveyor has not given any reason for not making the bill amount to the tune of Rs.38295/-, spent by the complainant on the repair of the insured vehicle. Moreover, the surveyor has also deduct Rs.1000/- on account of excess less clause despite the fact that the insurance policy was Nil Depreciation without excess clause. Perusal of the insurance policy reveals that the insurance company has charged Rs.3455.85/- from the complainant on account of Nil Depreciation without excess and after adding this amount, the insurance company has charged Rs.10629/- as insurance premium but when the complainant has lodged claim qua the damaged insured vehicle, then the insurance company, being in dominating position, has not paid the billed amount of Rs.38295/- and paid amount to the tune of Rs.30,300/- including the towing charges as Rs.1000/-. The deduction made by the surveyor is without any reasons despite the fact that the policy was Nil Depreciation without excess. The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite party/insurance company to pay Rs.9000/- in round figure (Rs.38295 - 30300 = 7995 + Rs.1000/- as towing charges) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Order be complied within 45 days from the date of order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 06.03.2020.
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
