BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 821 of 17.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          9.9.2011

Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Academy,through its Principal Smt.Manjit Kaur, situated at Devigarh, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, situated at Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate

For opposite party:                 Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant got his bus bearing No.PB-11-U-8960 insured with the op vide cover note No.571781 valid upto 5.11.2010.

2.       The bus of the complainant met with an accident and the same was badly damaged. The complainant got the bus repaired from M/s P.K.Motors Pvt.Ltd. SCO 132,Chhoti Baradari, Patiala having spent an amount of Rs.49,290/- .

3.       The bus was examined by the surveyor of the op after the accident and even after the repair of the same. The complainant made the payment of the bill and sent the bill to the op. However, the op issued the cheque No.874958 dated 20.7.2010 for Rs.25600/- only drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala  in favour of the complainant.

4.       Thereafter the complainant approached the manager of the op for disbursing the remaining amount of the bill borne by the complainant who made a refusal to pay the same.

5.       The complainant describing the act of the op in not having disbursed the full amount of the bill as a deficiency in service approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the op to pay a sum of Rs.37690/- i.e. Rs.23690/- as the balance amount of the bill, Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency of service, Rs.5000/- by virtue of the harassment suffered by the complainant, Rs.2000/- as costs of the litigation and Rs.2000/- as counsel’s fee.

6.       On notice, op appeared and filed its written version. It is admitted by the op that the complainant had obtained a insurance policy no.31/7425/09 in respect of the vehicle No.PB-11-U-8960 valid for the period 6.11.2009 to 5.11.2010.It is also admitted that the complainant had intimated about the claim vide intimation slip dated 29.4.2010 in respect of the damages caused to the vehicle in an accident on 28.4.2010.The competent authority of the op deputed Mr.R.K.Mangla,Surveyor and Loss Assessor for spot survey and Mr.Gautam Modhi, surveyor and loss assessor for final survey. On receipt of the reports from the two surveyors, the claim of the complainant was settled in a sum of Rs.25,600/- by the comnpetent authority of the op and accordingly cheque no.874958 dated 20.7.2010 for Rs.25600/- was issued in the name of the complainant. The claim of the complainant is payable only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The depreciation as per the policy condition was deducted. It is also the plea taken up by the op that the complainant accepted the voucher in full and final settlement of the claim. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of his claim, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1 alongwith the documents, Exs.C2 to C5 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       On the other hand, on behalf of the op, its learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.RA the sworn affidavit of Uma Dhir,Sr.Branch Manager of the op,  Ex.R-B, the sworn affidavit of R.K.Mangla, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ex.R-C the sworn affidavit of Gautam Modhi,surveyor and loss assessor alongwith the documents,Exs.R1 to R5 and its learned counsel closed evidence.

9.       The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     It is the positive case of the complainant that after he got the work in respect of the repair of bus No.PB-11-U-8960 done from M/s P.K.Motors Pvt. Ltd. SCO 132 Chhoti Baradari,Patiala having spent an amount of Rs.49290/- the bill was sent to the op but the failed to deny the said fact in unequivocal terms in the written statement.

11.     The complainant has produced in evidence Exs.C3 and C4, the retail invoices  in respect of the work got done from M/s P.K.Motors Pvt. Ltd. regarding bus No.PB-11-U-8960 for Rs.49290/-. On the other hand, the op has got proved the survey report,Ex.R3, from Mr.P.K.Mangla,Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Ex.R4 the final motor survey report from Mr.Gautam Modhi, the sworn affidavits of Mr.R.K.Mangla and of Mr.Gautam Modhi being Exs. RB and RC respectively.

12.     The complainant having submitted the bills, Exs.C3 and C4 to the op, it was obligatory on the part of the surveyor and loss assessor Mr.Gautam Modhi to make a distinction about the work got done by the complainant from M/s P.K.Motors Pvt.Ltd. with the schedule of assessment and recommendations made by him in his report Ex.R5. We made a comparison of the work got done by the complainant vide invoices, Exs.C3 and C4 with the schedule of assessment and recommendations made in the final survey report, Ex.R4. There is a  difference of work got done by M/s P.K.Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the schedule of assessment and recommendations made by Mr.Gautam Modhi. The surveyor and loss assessor Mr.Gautam Modi assessing the net loss at Rs.26645/- and after having deducted Rs.1000/- as the value of the salvage, assessed the same at Rs.25600/-.

13.     There being no reason to discard the bills,Exs.C3 and C4 in respect of the work got done by the complainant from M/s P.K.Motors Pvt. Ltd. especially when the bill had been submitted by the complainant to the op and as no attempt was made by the op to make a verification about the work got done by the complainant from M/s P.K.Motors Pvt.Ltd. and therefore, we are not inclined to rely upon the survey report,Ex.R4 and consequently we find that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the op in having not reimbursed the total amount of the invoices Exs.C3 and C4. We of course allow the deduction of Rs.1000/- as the value of the salvage. Out of the total amount of Rs.49290/- the op had earlier made the payment of Rs.25600/- thereby leaving an amount of Rs.23690/- still payable to the complainant, Deducting Rs.1000/- as the value of the salvage now op is liable to pay Rs.22690/- to the complainant. We accordingly accept the complaint and give a direction to the op to make the payment of Rs.22690/- with interest @9% per annum w.e.f.1.8.2011 to the complainant within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. In view of the facts and circumstances we also award the complainant the costs of the complaint at Rs.5000/-.

Pronounced.

Dated:9.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President