Delhi

East Delhi

CC/845/2015

R.K SINGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INS - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 845/15

 

R.K. Singhal & Company Pvt. Ltd.

302, Brindavan Apartments

92/4, Krishna Nagar

Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi – 110 029                                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

     Deputy General Manager

 United India Insurance Company Limited

Reg. Office II, TP Hub

Core I, Floor No. 2

Scope Minar Complex, Laxmi Nagar

Distt. Centre,  New Delhi – 110 092                                         ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 06.11.2015

Judgment Reserved for : 01.08.2017

Judgment Passed on : 02.08.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by M/s. R.K. Singhal & Company Pvt. Ltd. against Dy. General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited (OP), alleging deficiency in services. 

2.         Facts in brief are that the complainant carries on the business of Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor & got Tata Indigo SX car model 2005, bearing registration no. DL 3CW 7595 insured with OP vide policy                    no. 222781/31/12/01/00000727 for a period from 12.11.2012 to 11.11.2013 with IDV of Rs. 2,45,000/-.  It is stated that on 26.07.2013 around 2.30 p.m., the insured vehicle was stolen by one of his employees from his office-cum-residence, for which FIR No. 351/2013 dated 28.07.2013 was registered in PS Safdarjung Enclave.  OP was informed vide letter dated 29.07.2013, where the complainant was requested to inform National Crime Record Bureau & RTO Sheikh Sarai.  Thereafter, investigator was appointed by OP, who vide email dated 04.08.2013 asked for certain documents, which were duly supplied.  Investigator vide email dated 29.05.2014 informed the complainant that final report with respect to the claim had been submitted to OP.

             It has been further stated that the insured car was found to be in custody of Kotwali Dalanwal, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, wherein vide letter dated 18.06.2014, they were requested to deliver the custody to P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, which was duly delivered.  The insured vehicle was ordered to be released to the complainant vide order dated 14.07.2014 passed by Ld. MM, Ms. Purva Sareen, South/Saket Court, which was duly released on 21.07.2014.  OP was duly informed by the complainant vide letter dated 15.07.2014, regarding the recovery of the insured vehicle, thereby requesting the OP to appoint surveyor to assess the loss.

            It is further stated that the complainant vide letter dated 01.10.2014, informed the OP that with respect to earlier letter dated 15.07.2014, surveyor Mr. A.S. Duggal was appointed, who had inspected the insured vehicle at police station and the said vehicle was sent to M/s. Concord / Tata Motors,    A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road and final repair estimate was prepared by them.  However, the surveyor refused to accept the estimate.  The complainant requested the OP to reappoint surveyor for early settlement of claim.  The estimated cost of repair alongwith claim form was sent to the surveyor vide email dated 08.10.2014. 

            It is also stated that the surveyor vide letter dated 11.10.2014 informed the complainant that the insured vehicle had already been inspected and requested for recovery memo.  Surveyor vide email dated 15.11.2014 informed the complainant that there was no indication regarding damages/missing parts, thus, loss would be assessed on the basis of recovery memo prepared by police.  The contention of the complainant is that as the insured vehicle was mishandled by the thieves for a year, thus, the vehicle needed repair of almost all assemblies, sub-assemblies, parts etc.  The complainant was directed by the surveyor to arrange for repairs and submit bills  for settlement of claim vide letter dated 02.01.2015 and the labour charges for repair of body shell at the authorized dealer were settled at           Rs. 38,500/-.

             

            Complaint vide email dated 28.01.2015 with IRDA was also lodged.  Despite several requests, the claim of the complainant was not settled.  Complainant has stated that OP instead of settling the claim on total loss basis delayed the claim.  The complainant has further stated that vide email dated 13.03.2015, the independent final survey report assessed the claim to be      Rs. 57,308/-.  The complainant has alleged that surveyor had assessed the damage arbitrarily, without actual inspection.

            The complainant has stated that M/s. Concorde Motors India Ltd. (a subsidiary of Tata Motors) has estimated the cost of total repairs to be          Rs. 4,56,939/-, which was more than the IDV of Rs. 2,50,000/-.  Thus, the surveyor instead of taking it as total loss has assessed the claim to be of         Rs. 57,308/-.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to settle the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- alongwith the interest @ 24% p.a.; cost of litigation of Rs. 25,000/-; OP to bear and pay the applicable garage charges and            Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.   

            Complainant has annexed copy of Private Car-Package policy dated 12.11.2012, copy of letter to SHO, Safdarjung Enclave, copy of FIR, copy of letter dated 29.07.2013, copy of letter to the Director of NCRB, copy of letter to RTO, Sheikh Sarai, copies of the letter and emails exchanged between the complainant and investigator on 01.08.2013, 02.08.2013, copy of investigator’s email dated 29.05.2014, copy of letter dated 18.06.2014, copy of witness summon dated 22.06.2014 and order of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dated 14.07.2014, copy of complainant’s letter dated 15.07.2014, 21.07.2014, 01.10.2014, copy of email dated 08.10.2014 and claim form, copy of surveyor/s letter dated 11.10.2014, copies of email dated 15.11.2014, 18.11.2014, 22.11.2014 and letter dated 28.11.2014, copy of surveyor’s letter dated 12.01.2015, 27.01.2015, 09.02.2015, copy of complainants letter dated 12.01.2015, email dated 21.01.2015 and 23.01.2015, 28.01.2015, 02.02.2015 and IRDA’s email dated 10.02.2015, letter dated 20.02.2015 and 30.03.2015 and copy of respondent’s email dated 23.02.2015 and 13.03.2015 with the complaint. 

3.         OP in the defence stated that the IRDA approved surveyor had been appointed, subsequent to the lodging of claim by the complainant, who assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 57,308/-.  It was stated that the complainant was requested to produce the vehicle for re-inspection and submission of bills and receipt of payments vide mail and letter dated 16.11.2015, which the complainant did not comply with.  It was further stated that OP was ready to release the payment as per surveyor’s report, subject to complainant fulfilling all the necessary requirements, thus, there was no deficiency on their part.  Rest of the contents of the complaint had been denied. 

            Surveyor report dated 02.03.2015 and copy of policy from 12.11.2012 to 11.11.2013 are Annexure 1 and 2 respectively. 

4.         Complainant in his rejoinder stated that the delivery of the insured car had never been taken and was still with M/s. Concord/Tata Motors workshop.  It was stated that OP had overlooked the detailed analysis done by              M/s. Concord/Tata Motors, who have necessary and technical qualifications to assess the actual damage with respect to assembly, sub-assembly, parts etc.  The complainant has also stated that the OP had refused to cover the damages to the interiors and electrical components of the car, which were covered under the policy.  Rest of the contents of the WS were denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.

5.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, were he got examined himself and narrated the contents of the complaint.  He has stated that M/s. Concord/Tata Motors, authorized workshop had estimated the cost of repair to be Rs. 4,56,939/-, which was more than the IDV of Rs. 2,45,000/-.  Thus, OP was liable to settle his claim considering it to be a total loss.

            Shri R.K. Sirona, Dy. Manager, was examined on behalf of OP, who stated that as per the surveyor’s report, dated 02.03.2015 , the net loss was assessed to Rs. 57,308/- only and narrated the facts of their WS. 

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP and have perused the material placed on record.  The factum that the car bearing no. DL 3C W 7595 was insured with OP with IDV of Rs. 2,45,000/- for the period 12.11.2012 to 11.11.2013 is not disputed.  The dispute is with respect to the quantum of claim.  The contention raised by the complainant is that the surveyor appointed by OP in an arbitrary manner assessed the loss to be of Rs. 57,308/-.  He has based his cost on the estimated repair cost given by M/s. Corcorde/Tata Motors, who have assessed the cost of repair of Rs. 4,56,939/-.  However, the alleged estimate annexed with the complaint is not on any letter head of the above mentioned repairers as alleged, thus, the same cannot be considered.

            If we take a look at surveyor’s report, the surveyor has given detailed description of the assessment, thus, it cannot be overlooked.  When the surveyor’s report cannot be doubted then no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OPs.  Thus, present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits and without orders to cost.  However, OP is directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per surveyor report within 30 days from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant.         

           Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                          President