THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 215-14

Date of Institution : 16.4.2014

Date of Decision : 29.6..2015

Mr. Harpreet Singh Sandhu S/o Sh. Sukhchain Singh R/o VPO Fatehpur Badesha, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran

...Complainant

Vs.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer Service through its branch office at M.M.Malviya Road, Amritsar through its branch manager

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainants : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Adv.

For the opposite party : Sh. Rajinder Nayyar,Adv.

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Harpreet Singh Sandhu under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got his car

-2-

Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. PB 02 BT 6472 (Temp) insured with the opposite party vide policy bearing No. 319187 for the period from 27.6.2012 to 26.6.2013 on payment of premium of Rs. 24071/-. According to the complainant the said vehicle met with an accident on 30.6.2012 and the complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the loss to the vehicle. Opposite party appointed surveyor to assess the loss and on the directions of the opposite party/surveyor, the complainant took the vehicle to the authorized service centre of Mahindra company i.e. Universal Motors, G.T. Road, Amritsar for repairs. Said vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs. 3,39,587/- alongwith tax. The policy was cashless policy, but the opposite party paid only Rs. 2,38,438/- thereby paid Rs. 1,02,000/- less to the repairer and the complainant had to pay this amount to the repairer in order to get his vehicle released from the repairer on 9.5.2013. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- alongwith interes @ 12%. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice,opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on receipt of intimation of loss from the complainant, opposite party appointed surveyor M/s. M.L.Mehta & Company, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,05,535/-. But after that when the complainant submitted the bill of the spare parts issued by Universal Motors, the surveyor found that there is lot of

-3-

difference of the rates of different item shown in the surveyor report and the bills issued by Universal Motors as in the surveyor report the rate of body shell was assessed Rs. 1,75,051.32 paise but in the bill issued by Universal Motors the rate of the body shell is shown as Rs. 1,52,413.82 paise and the same is the position of item No.2,3 and others. It was further submitted that as per the policy terms and conditions, the company is only liable to pay 50% of the Rubber parts damage and after calculating the amount of the spare parts the total payable amount has comes to Rs. 2,27,741.45 paise as value of the parts and Rs. 42,696.80 paise as value of labour and Rs. 1500/- as towing charges thus the total amount comes to Rs. 2,71,2938.25 paise and after deducting less salvage value of Rs. 30000/- and less excess clause Rs. 2000/- the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,39,938.25paise which was paid by the opposite party to Universal Motors on the instructions of the complainant which was duly accepted by the complainant after signing the discharge voucher in favour of the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of cover note Ex.C-2, copies of payment receipts Ex.C-3 to C-5, copy of repair bill Ex.C-6.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.R-1, surveyor report of M.L. Mehta & Co. Ex.R-2, discharge voucher Ex.R-3, copy of bill dated 11.2.2013 Ex.R-4, copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R-5.

-4-

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties it is clear that complainant got his car Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. PB 02 BT 6472 (Temp) insured with the opposite party vide policy Ex.C-2 for the period from 27.6.2012 to 26.6.2013 on payment of premium of Rs. 24071/-. The complainant alleges that he purchased the vehicle in question on 27.6.2012. However, unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 30.6.2012 i.e. within 3 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Opposite party was informed immediately about the loss to the vehicle. Opposite party appointed surveyor to assess the loss and as per the directions of the opposite party/surveyor, the complainant took the vehicle to the authorized service centre of Mahindra company i.e. Universal Motors, G.T. Road, Amritsar for repairs. Said vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs. 3,39,587/- as per bill Ex.R-4 alongwith tax. The policy was cashless policy, but the opposite party paid only Rs. 2,38,438/- thereby paid Rs. 1,02,000/- less to the repairer and the complainant had to pay this amount to the repairer in order to get his vehicle released from the repairer on 9.5.2013. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party was not

-5-

justified in deducting this amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on receipt of intimation of loss from the complainant, opposite party appointed surveyor M/s. M.L.Mehta & Company, who submitted his report Ex.R-2 dated 1.12.2012 vide which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,38.438/-. The opposite party informed the complainant about the report of the surveyor and the complainant duly signed the satisfaction letter Ex.R-3 in favour of the opposite party authorizing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,39,938/- directly to the repairer, so that the complainant can take delivery of his car by making payment of other amount and the opposite party paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,39,938/- to the repairer i.e. Universal Motors as full and final discharge of all liabilities arising out of this claim. Opposite party submitted that after signing this form the complainant has no right to file the present complaint for the remaining amount. Opposite party further submitted that surveyor M.L. Mehta and Co assessed the loss of said damaged car to the tune of Rs. 3,05,535/-. But after that when the complainant submitted the bill of the spare parts issued by Universal Motors, the surveyor has found that there is a lot of difference of rates on different items shown in the survey report and the bills issued by Universal Motors the rate of body shell was assessed Rs. 1,75,051.32 paise but in the bill issued by Universal Motors Ex.R-4 under the head of body

-6-

shell is shown as Rs. 1,52,413.82 paise. Similar is the position with regard to other items . As per the policy terms and conditions the company is liable to pay 50% of the rubber parts damage. So calculating all these things and the amount of spare parts the total payable amount assessed by the surveyor comes to Rs. 2,27,741.45 paise and Rs. 42,696.80 paise as value of labour and Rs. 1500/- as toeing charges ; in all total amount comes to Rs. 2,71,2938.25 paise after deducting the salvage value of Rs. 30000/- and less excess clause Rs. 2000/-. The surveyor assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,39,938.25 paise which was paid by the opposite party to the Universal Motors on the instructions of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased his car Mahindra Scorpio bearing temporary registration No. PB 02 BT 6472 on 27.6.2012 and he got the same insured with the opposite party for the period from 27.6.2012 to 26.6.2013 vide policy Ex.C-2 on payment of premium of Rs. 24,071/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 30.6.2012 i.e. after three days of the purchase of the vehicle. Matter was reported to the opposite party immediately by the complainant. Opposite party appointed surveyor M/s. M.L.Mehta and company, Jalandhar city to assess the loss occurred to the vehicle of the complainant and on the directions of the opposite party/surveyor , the

-7-

complainant got the vehicle repaired from authorized service centre of Mahindra Company i.e. Universal Motors, G.T. Road, Amritsar. The vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs. 3,39,587/- as per bill Ex.R-4 produced by the opposite party itself. The policy was cashless policy. Even the surveyor appointed by the opposite party vide his report Ex.R-2 assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs. 3,10,535.41 paise after deducting amount of less clause as well as labour charges , etc.. But the opposite party paid Rs. 2,39,938/- only to the repairer i.e. Universal Motors, G.T. Road, Amritsar and the complainant had to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- to the repairer. Opposite party has relied upon the report of the surveyor Ex.R-2 which itself does not appear to be genuine document because the surveyor has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 3,12,535.41 paise and after deduction of amount of less clause Rs. 2000/- , he assessed net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,10,535.41 paise . But there are so many cuttings, over writings and rough work on this report Ex.R-2 made by the opposite party which is not signed by the repairer, as such this document becomes highly doubtful. Further, the opposite party neither examined the surveyor nor produced any affidavit of the surveyor to prove the authenticity of this report. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Manikant Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd 2012(1) CPJ 88 (NC) that where no evidence led to prove the surveyor's report in absence of which surveyor's report has little evidentiary value. So this report Ex.R-2 of the

-8-

surveyor remained unproved on record. Further , opposite party relied upon the satisfaction letter allegedly signed by the complainant Ex.R-3, alleging that the complainant himself agreed for the settlement of his claim to the tune of Rs. 2,39,938/- as full and final settlement of his claim. This report has been challenged by the counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant never agreed to this amount. Apart from this complainant filed application dated 10.9.2014 asking the opposite party to disclose the date when the complainant signed the alleged satisfaction letter. The opposite party submitted reply but failed to tell the exact date , month or year when this satisfaction letter has been signed by the complainant. Whereas the complainant has produced on record the copy of his passport Ex.C-7 to prove that when the said alleged settlement has been allegedly made, the complainant was away to Canada from 2.9.2012 to 28.10.2013 as is evident from this copy of passport Ex.C-7. So opposite party has failed to prove on record this fact that complainant signed this document voluntarily. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident within 3 days from the date of its purchase i.e. a new car. As such the opposite party cannot deduct any amount regarding depreciation for the parts of the vehicle or regarding rubber parts. Rather it is a case of accident of new car that too within 3 days of the purchase of the car. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar 2009(IV) CPJ 46 (SC) that the complainant's claim

-9-

can be accepted, if it is supported by original vouchers, bills and receipts. In this case opposite party itself has produced on record copy of original bill of repair given by duly authorized service centre I.e. Universal Motors regarding repair of the vehicle of the complainant Ex.R-4. As such the opposite party is liable to pay the entire amount the complainant had spent on the repair of his vehicle.

9. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order ; failing which complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a on his amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

29.6.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member