Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/228

Sahib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ashu Mittal

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :     228

Date of Institution: 11.08.2016

Date of Decision :    7.02.2016

 

 

Sahib Singh aged about 52 years, s/o Sh Mukhtiar Singh, r/o Village Ram Garh, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                                              

...Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Chowk No. 1, Goal Market, Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Manager.

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Regional Office, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its DGM............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of theConsumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P L Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ashok Kumar Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  United India Insurance Co/OPs seeking directions to them to make payment of remaining insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, deficiency in service and harassment besides litigation expenses.

2          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got insured his car make Toyota Fortuner bearing registration PB 65 U 0005 with Ops vide insurance policy no.20/283/31/14/01/00003238 for the period from 20.02.2015 to 19.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.16,80,000/- and during the period of insurance policy, car of complainant met with an accident at Chandigarh while trying to save a dog and collided with a tree and car of complainant got overturned. Complainant immediately informed OPs, who sent a Surveyor and said Surveyor clicked the photographs of vehicle and thoroughly inspected the same and on advice of Surveyor, complainant parked the car at EM Pee Motors Ltd, who made estimate for repair charges to the tune of Rs.15,60,719/-. After investigation by OPs, the Surveyor found the vehicle in total loss and assessed the loss on total loss basis to the tune of Rs.16,78,000/- and value of damaged vehicle was assessed Rs.8.30 lacs. Thereafter, OPs appointed second and final Surveyor, who assessed the value of damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.9,85,000/-. After that OPs proposed complainant to keep the damaged vehicle for Rs.9,85,000/-and remaining payment of Rs.6,93,000/-was to be made to complainant by OPs and complainant accepted the valuation of vehicle to the tune of Rs.9,85,000/-and complainant kept the vehicle, but to his great surprise, he found that OPs deposited only Rs.6,43000/-in his account on 8.06.2016 and then complainant immediately approached the office of Ops with request to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-, but all in vain and they did not pay any heed to listen to his request. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice, for which he has prayed seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs 30,000/- as compensation besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission and vide order dated 17.08.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued.

4               OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is without any cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that accident took place on 13.12.2016 and on receipt of intimation regarding  accidents, OPs appointed Surveyor, who after inspection of vehicle gave his report dt 1.03.2016 and thereafter, valuation of damaged vehicle was got assessed from  two independent approved Valuers vide their reports dt 10.03.2016 and 17.05.2016 respectively and after that claim of complainant was sent to competent authority for approval and claim was approved for payment of Rs.6,43,000/-. It is further averred that whole matter was discussed with complainant, who gave written consent note and accepted the claim. Payment of claim was made to complainant on 8.06.2016 as full and final settlement and it was processed without any delay in the minimum period and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is further averred that complaint is barred in view of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover, complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts, which require thorough investigation and recording of evidence at length and same cannot be conducted in this Forum with limited jurisdiction and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and complaint is malafide and is filed only to harass and harm the answering OP and with malafide intentions to illegally extract public money from OP Insurance Company and as such, complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and is liable to be dismissed. It is asserted that complainant has not cleared the point that how he reached at Rs.50,000/-. Claim of complainant has been passed and paid after thorough enquiry and investigation on merits as per terms and conditions of the Policy in question and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections and further asserted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed his evidence.

6               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Baldev Singh Divisional Manager as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-12  and then, closed the evidence.

7                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents  placed on the file.

8            The Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant got insured his car make Toyota Fortuner with Ops vide insurance policy in question for the period from 20.02.2015 to 19.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.16,80,000/- and during the period of insurance policy, car of complainant met with an accident at Chandigarh while trying to save a dog and collided with a tree and car of complainant got overturned. Complainant immediately informed OPs, who sent a Surveyor and said Surveyor clicked the photographs of vehicle and after thorough inspection of the same, adviced complainant to park the car at EM Pee Motors Ltd, who made estimate for repair charges to the tune of Rs.15,60,719/-. After investigation by OPs, the Surveyor found the vehicle in total loss and assessed the loss on total loss basis to the tune of Rs.16,78,000/- and value of damaged vehicle was assessed Rs.8.30 lacs. Thereafter, OPs appointed second and final Surveyor, who assessed the value of damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.9,85,000/-.After that OPs proposed complainant to keep the damaged vehicle for Rs.9,85,000/-and remaining payment of Rs.6,93,000/-was to be made to him by OPs and complainant accepted the valuation of vehicle to the tune of Rs.9,85,000/-and kept the vehicle, but to his great surprise, he found that OPs deposited only Rs.6,43000/-in his account on 8.06.2016. He immediately approached Ops with request to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-, but all in vain and they did not pay any heed to listen to his request. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

9       Ld counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that present complaint is without any cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that accident took place on 13.12.2016 and on receipt of intimation regarding accident, OPs appointed Surveyor, who after inspection of vehicle gave his report dt 1.03.2016 and thereafter, valuation of damaged vehicle was got assessed from  two independent approved Valuers vide their reports dt 10.03.2016 and 17.05.2016 respectively and after that claim of complainant was sent to competent authority for approval and claim was approved for payment of Rs.6,43,000/-. It is further averred that whole matter was discussed with complainant, who gave written consent note and accepted the claim. Payment of claim was made to complainant on 8.06.2016 as full and final settlement and it was processed without any delay in the minimum period and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is further averred that complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts, which require thorough investigation and recording of evidence at length and same cannot be conducted in this Forum with limited jurisdiction and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as he has not cleared the point that how he reached at Rs.50,000/-. Claim of complainant has been passed and paid after thorough enquiry and investigation as per terms and conditions of the Policy in question and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted and Ld Counsel for Ops has prayed for dismissing the complaint.

10                                 From the careful perusal of record and aforementioned discussion, it is observed that case of complainant is that his insured car met with an accident and on intimation by him to OPs, Ops after thorough examination by independent Surveyors approved the claim to the tune of Rs.9,85,000/- and complainant gave his consent for acceptance of this claim. But on 8.06.2016, OPs credited only Rs.6,43,000/-in the account of complainant and when complainant requested them to pay the remaining amount, OPs did not pay any heed to his requests. Despite several requests by complainant, OPs did not make payment of remaining amount. In reply, Ops asserted that claim of complainant was passed for Rs.6,43,000/-and entire claim amount towards insurance policy in question has already been paid to him without any delay and complainant has duly received the same and now, nothing is due towards them. Complainant has levelled false allegations of remaining amount due towards OPs.

11         It is admitted case of parties that vehicle in question was insured with OPs for total sum of Rs16,80,000/- and accident occurred within the period of insurance and claim regarding said accident was lodged with Ops. After investigation by OPs, the Surveyor found the vehicle in total loss and assessed the loss on total loss basis to the tune of Rs.16,78,000/- and value of damaged vehicle was assessed Rs.8.30 lacs. Main contention of complainant is that his claim on account of accident of his insured vehicle was approved by Ops for Rs.6,93,000/-after deducting the value of damaged vehicle on total loss basis vide Office Note of Ops dt 22.04.2014 Ex C-3 and complainant also gave his consent for acceptance of same, but thereafter, OPs paid only amount of Rs.6,43,000/-and did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-as approved by Ops as per their office note Ex C-3. Moreover, OPs have themselves produced on record copy of Survey Report given by Gurdeep Singh, independent Surveyor of OPs, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,95,000/-after deducting the salvage amount and this claim was duly approved by OPs vide their office note Ex C-3. On the contrary OPs rely on Ex OP-10 which is based on the report of R P Bhasin, who was another Surveyor appointed by Ops after approval of claim to the tune of Rs.6,95,000/-.

12                  From the careful perusal of document Ex C-7, which is Valuation Report by RP Bhasin, it is clear that said R P Bhasin has never made spot survey, nor he ever checked on inspected the damaged vehicle. He has made his report only on the photographs or condition described by Surveyor Rajesh Kumar Wadhawan, the first Surveyor and Loss Assessor of OPs. It is wrong on the part of Ops that if they have already approved the claim of complainant on the basis of survey conducted by Rajesh Kuamr Wadhawan and Gurdeep Singh vide their office order dt 22.04.2014 Ex C-3, there was no need to appoint another Surveyor for further survey. Moreover, said Surveyor has neither made spot survey nor checked the vehicle, he has reached to the claim amount of Rs.6,43,000/-only on the basis of photographs and clippings and claim file of complainant. It is observed that in the light of  Office Note issued by Ex C-3 produced by complainant and Survey Report given by Gurdeep Singh, which is produced by Ops themselves as Ex OP-7, it is clear that there is no relevance of report given by 3^rd Surveyor and even when claim was passed and approved by Ops, then there was no need to appoint him. In our considered opinion, complainant has succeeded in proving his case and is entitled for remaining insurance claim sought by him.

13                  In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings put forward and evidence led by parties and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby accepted with direction to Ops to make payment of remaining insurance claim of Rs. 50,000/-as per Ex C-3 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 8.06.2016, when they made payment of only Rs.6,43,000/- and withheld the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- till final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.6,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs 3,000/-. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the 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 order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 7.02.2017                      Member                 President

 (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)