DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 283/2014
Date of Institution : 12.12.2014
Date of Decision : 18.06.2015
Kewal Krishan Verma S/o Sh. B.S. Verma R/o B-386, Qila Rehmatgarh Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company, Dhaunala Road, Barnala, through its Branch Manager.
United India Insurance Company, 2090-B, The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.K Jain Advocate counsel for the complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Advocate counsel for the opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Kewal Krishan Verma has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against United India Insurance Company Dhaunala Road, Barnala, through its Branch Manager and United India Insurance Company, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager (hereinafter called as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Tata Ace bearing Registration No. PB-13-V-4037 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties vide cover note No. 603238 for the period 5.2.2011 to 4.2.2012. It is alleged that on the evening of 4.2.2012 the complainant visited Kamal Jain authorized agent of the opposite parties, who renewed the insurance of the vehicle. The said Kamal Jain charged Rs. 11,264/- from the complainant and handed over a printed form as a token of insurance for the period 5.2.2012 to 4.2.2013 and further assured the complainant that he would receive the policy in a few days, but the same was never received by the complainant despite many requests.
3. It is alleged that the said vehicle met with an accident on 8.8.2012 while the complainant was returning from Rara Sahib. The intimation of claim was given to the opposite parties. The complainant further alleged that as per advice of the opposite parties the vehicle was sent to M/s Shadi Choudhry Motors, Malerkotla, the authorized dealer of the manufacturer M/s Tata Motors. The vehicle was surveyed by Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, who after collecting all the relevant papers approved the repair and as per his instructions the repair of the vehicle was carried out. It is further alleged that complainant submitted all the necessary papers alongwith required bills to the opposite party No. 1 for the settlement of claim. The complainant time and again requested the opposite parties to release the claim, but the opposite parties vide letter dated 14.12.2012 closed the case on the vague ground of non-completion of formalities. Thereafter, the complainant in order to ascertain the deficiency in claim file applied for a copy of the complete claim file, but the opposite parties did not provide the copy of the claim file despite deposited fee of Rs. 85/-. The complainant even moved a first appeal to the Regional Manager of the opposite parties, but nothing was done. Thus, it was alleged that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is also pleaded that the complainant earlier filed a consumer complaint bearing No. CC/259/2014, which was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay cost of repair amounting to Rs. 61,943/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
To pay towing charges amounting to Rs. 1,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
To pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared through Counsel and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no cause of action or locus standi, mis use of process of law, violation of policy conditions, complainant used the vehicle in question for commercial purpose and opposite parties have rightly declined the claim on account of non producing the certificate of fitness. On merits, they admitted the insurance of the said vehicle with them. It is further pleaded that the complainant himself parked his vehicle for getting repair from M/s Shadi Choudhary Motors, Malerkotla. However, it is admitted that the opposite parties deputed Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 37,255/- after deducting salvage and excess. The opposite parties further submitted that complainant failed to supply the certificate of fitness duly issued by the competent authority, then the opposite parties closed the claim of the complainant. Further the allegations of the complainant are wrong and finally the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of proposal form Ex.C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3, copy of cheque Ex.C-4, copies of bills Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, copy of RC Ex.C-7, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C-8, copy of RTI application Ex.C-9, copy of letter dated 15.1.2014 Ex.C-10, copy of first appeal Ex.C-11, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-12, copy of RTI Ex.C-13 and closed his evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O.P1, copy of information letter dated 8.8.2012 Ex.O.P2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.O.P3, copy of letter dated 12.10.2012 Ex.O.P4, copy of letter dated 25.10.2012 Ex.O.P5, copy of letter dated 18.11.2012 Ex.O.P6, copy of policy Ex.O.P7, copy of from No. 64 V B Ex.O.P8, copy of certificate of fitness Ex.O.P9 and closed the evidence.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the cover note issued by the opposite parties, which shows that the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties for the period 5.2.2012 to 4.2.2013. There is also no specific denial from the side of opposite parties that the vehicle in question was met with an accident on 8.8.2012.
8. Now the material question arises whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation as per the bills or as per the surveyor report. Perusal of the repair bill of Shadi Choudhary Motors Ex.C-3 shows the amount of Rs. 37,193/-. Ex.C-5 is another bill of S.K. Mechanical Works showing the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 21,750/- and Ex.C-6 is another bill of Indian Tyre Service showing the amount of Rs. 3,000/-. On the basis of these three bills the complainant requested to compensate to the tune of Rs. 37,193/- + Rs. 21,750/- + Rs. 3,000/- amounting to Rs. 61,943/-.
9. On the other hand the insurance company has placed on record the surveyor report showing assessment of expenditure to the tune of Rs. 37,255/-. In the concluded para the surveyor has specifically mentioned that the vehicle in question was inspected after the repairs of the same. All the parts allowed were found replaced, the vehicle was found repaired satisfactorily & in road worthy condition.
10. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as “Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II (2010) CPJ 1 (SC)” in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the report of the Investigator/Surveyor is to be given due importance and weight. Keeping in view the supra rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we can not brush aside the report prepared by the Investigator without any valid reasons. On this point, Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in 2010 CTJ 420 (CP) (NCDRC) titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Rabindra Narayan and in judgment 2007 (1) CLT page 392 titled as Universal Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others has also held so.
11. Moreover, the complainant has failed to place on record the affidavits of Shadi Choudhary Motors, S.K. Mechanical Works and Indian Tyre Service showing the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 37,193/-, Rs. 21,750/- and Rs. 3,000/-.
12. Keeping in view the surveyor's report, the bills without any affidavit placed on record by the complainant lose their importance.
13. In view of the above discussion the present complaint is accepted against the opposite parties to the extent that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 37,255/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,100/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. This order of ours shall be complied within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
18th Day of June, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
