Punjab

Moga

CC/16/135

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Arun Tayal

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 135 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 09.08.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 09.11.2016

 

Pritam Singh, aged about 69 years, son of Nidhan Singh son of Wasakha Singh, resident of Village Samadh Bhai, District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional Office at Shop No.6-7, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market, G.T.Road, Moga, Tehsil & District Moga, through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Party

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Arun Tayal, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate Cl. for opposite party.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional Office at Shop No.6-7, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market, G.T.Road, Moga, Tehsil & District Moga, through its Divisional Manager (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) directing them to pay a sum of Rs.46,651/- on account of lesser claim paid by them and to pay a sum of Rs.37,502/- on account of interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period from 01.08.2014 to 23.03.2016 on delayed payment of claim amount. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be also granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.09.2013, the complainant purchased a new car bearing chassis no.6029494 and engine no.039203, registration no.PB-29R-0118. At the time of purchase of said car, the complainant got insured his vehicle from opposite party for the period 18.09.2013 to 17.09.2014 vide policy no.2012003113P103932475 under 'Nil Depreciation Scheme' and for this scheme the complainant also paid the extra premium to opposite party. During the aforesaid policy period i.e. on 14.06.2014, the car of the complainant met with an accident and intimation of same was also given to opposite party. The complainant repaired his car from Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. and before starting the repair work, the complainant handed over the estimate bill to opposite party. After repair on 30.06.2014 Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. delivered the car to the complainant and at the time of delivery of said car, the complainant paid the repair bill amounting to Rs.2,55,003/- to said Padam Cars. On very next day i.e. on 01.07.2014, the complainant deposited the aforesaid bill dated 30.06.2014 to opposite party. The concerned officer of the opposite party told the complainant that within one month the complainant will receive the payment directly to his bank account given by him. After passing of one month, the complainant did not receive any payment from opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of opposite party and enquired about the payment. The concerned officer of the opposite party told the complainant that they did not receive the final report from the surveyor and after receiving the final report, they will transfer the amount in the account of the complainant. Later on, after passing of another one month, the complainant again visited the office of opposite party and received the same answer. Thereafter, the complainant several times visited the office of the opposite party and always received the same answer. Finally on 23.03.2016, after waiting 1 year 9 months, the complainant received the payment from the opposite party. On 24.03.2016, when the complainant inquired from his bank regarding the claim amount, then the complainant shocked to know that the opposite party only transferred an amount of Rs.2,08,352/- instead of Rs.2,55,003/-. Immediately, the complainant visited the office of opposite party and came to know that the opposite party deducted the amount of Rs.46,651/- on ground of depreciation. The complainant told the opposite party that his car is insured under 'Nil Depreciation Scheme', but they did not listen anything. Such act and omission on the part of opposite party amounts to great deficiency in service, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has suffered a great financial loss, irreparable loss and injury at the hands of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct; that the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the opposite party; that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. He has concealed, suppressed and misstated the material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that Sh. Pritam Singh got insured a car bearing registration no. PB-29R-0118 from opposite party. The said vehicle was insured under policy no.2012003113P103932475 for the period of 18.09.2013 to 17.09.2014 subject to policy' terms and conditions. The vehicle bearing registration on.PB-29R-0118 met with an accident on 14.06.2014 as alleged and informed by Satnam Singh s/o Pritam Singh. The opposite party immediately appointed surveyor Mr. R.P. Bhasin, who investigated the matter and submitted its final survey report dated 22.08.2014 to opposite party and assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.1,80,671/-. After the report of surveyor, the complainant again requested the opposite party to assess some damaged parts and labour charges. The opposite party again appointed Sh.R.P. Bhasin to assess the damaged parts and labour charges. The surveyor submitted its report dated 25.11.2014, in which, he assessed the loss as Rs.1,80,617/- ( as per final survey report ) + 27,681/- = 2,08,352/-. The opposite party paid Rs.2,08,352/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor. The Surveyor has not depreciated any amount in his report and the allegations of the complainant that the opposite party has depreciated the amount were totally false and frivolous. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the vehicle bearing registration no.PB-29R-0118 got insured vide policy no.2012003113P103932475 for the period of 18.09.2013 to 17.09.2014 subject to policy's terms and conditions. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite party tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Moga Ex.OP-1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                The case of the complainant is that he is owner of car which was insured with opposite party for the period 18.09.2013 to 17.09.2014 under NIL depreciation scheme. During the policy period, on 14.06.2014 the car of the complainant met with an accident. The complainant gave intimation regarding the same to opposite party. The complainant got repaired his car from Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. and paid Rs.2,55,003/- to it for the repair of vehicle vide bill dated 30.06.2014. Copy of insurance policy is Ex.C-3, copy of intimation letter is Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 30.06.2014 is Ex.C-7. The complainant submitted the bill on 01.07.2014 with opposite party for payment of his claim. The opposite party assured that he will receive the payment directly in his bank account within one month. But they did not make any payment. The complainant visited the office of opposite party many times to inquire regarding his insurance claim. Thereafter, on 23.03.2016 after waiting for 1 year and 9 months, the opposite party credited a sum of Rs.2,08,352/- in the account of the complainant instead of actual bill of Rs.2,55,003/-. The complainant immediately visited the office of opposite party, who told that the amount of Rs.46,651/- was deducted on account of depreciation, whereas car of the complainant was insured under NIL depreciation scheme. The opposite party cannot deduct any amount as depreciation. The complainant is entitled for the actual amount spent by him for the repair of his vehicle. This act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on their part. On the other hand, opposite party admitted that the car of the complainant insured with them and during the insurance period, the same met with an accident and complainant informed opposite party regarding the said accident. On it, they appointed surveyor to investigate the matter. The surveyor submitted his survey report dated 22.08.2014 with opposite party and assess the loss to the extent of Rs.1,80,671/-, but the complainant was not satisfied with this report and on the request of complainant, opposite parties again appointed surveyor to re-assess the loss to the vehicle. The surveyor in his report dated 25.11.2014 assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,08,352/-. The surveyor had not depreciated any amount in his report. As per the report of the surveyor, the opposite party paid Rs.2,08,352/- to complainant towards the loss of his vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the present complaint may be dismissed.

8.                Now, it is admitted case of the parties that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with opposite party under NIL depreciation scheme. The said vehicle met with an accident within the insurance period and complainant duly informed the opposite party regarding the accident. It is further admitted that the complainant spent Rs.2,55,003/- for the repair of his vehicle and paid this amount to Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd vide invoice dated 30.06.2014, which was duly submitted to opposite party. The version of opposite party is that they appointed surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle of the complainant, who firstly vide his survey report dated 22.08.2014 assessed the loss to the vehicle as Rs.1,80,671/- and again on the request of the complainant surveyor re-assess the loss and vide his report dated 25.11.2014 assessed the loss as Rs.2,08,352/-, copies of these reports are Ex.OP-2 and OP-3 respectively. When it is admitted that vehicle of the complainant was insured under NIL depreciation scheme, meaning thereby that no amount can be deducted from the claim amount on account of depreciation. Then how the surveyor in his first report assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,80,671/- and in his second report Rs.2,08,352/-. Whereas as per repair bill dated 30.06.2014, the complainant paid Rs.2,55,003/- for the repair of his vehicle. How the surveyor assess the less amount than the actual loss. We are not agreed with the report of surveyor. Moreover, the report of the surveyor is only recommendary not mandatory. The complainant is entitled for the amount actual spent by him for the repair of his vehicle, as the vehicle of the complainant was insured under NIL depreciation scheme.

9.                From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for the actual amount, which he spent for the repair of his vehicle and not for the amount which is assessed by surveyor. Moreover, the surveyor' reports are itself contradictory to each other. We cannot rely upon these surveyor reports. Hence the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.46,651/- to the complainant, which is deducted by them from the actual claim amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 23.03.2016, when opposite party made payment of less amount to complainant till realization. Further opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 09.11.2016.

 

                                                  (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                            Member                                     President