Haryana

Kaithal

161/21

Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.161 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   08.07.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      04.01.2024.

 

Ram Kumar s/o Shri Lal Singh, r/o village Sandeel, Tehsil and District Jind.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, branch office at Karnal Road, near Indira Gandhi College, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office at Floor No.8, Kanchengunga Building 8^th 909 Barakhamba Road, near Fire Brigade Line, New Delhi-110001.
3. Shree Ram King Automobiles, Opposite TATA Motors, Jind Bye Pass Road, Kaithal, through its Partner/Proprietor.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

                   Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint by the complainant that he is registered owner of Car Maruti Alto bearing No.HR-31Q-8633 Model 2019, which was fully insured w.e.f. 11.02.2020 to 10.02.2021 with OP No.1 vide policy No.34280031200160017288. That on 15.12.2020, the said car met with an accident being driven by him and after the accident, the car was not in running condition and he shifted the same to OP No.3 (authorized service station of OPs No.1 & 2) for repair of car. OP NO.3 checked the car and make the total estimate of damaged car to the tune of Rs.46204/- + 2000/- as crane charges. OPs No.1 & 2 deputed Deepak as Investigator to assess the loss, who inspected the damaged car. But OPs No.1 & 2 had paid only Rs.33285/- to him, while the actual amount of repair invoice/bill, issued by OP No.3 was of Rs.46204/- + Rs.2000/-, as such, OPs No.1 & 2 paid less amount of Rs.15019/- to him. He requested OPs No.1 & 2 various times to make the balance payment of claim amount, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, whereas, OP No.3 failed to appear, before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 11.04.2022, despite receipt of notices from this Commission, as such, OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                OPs No.1 & 2, in their written statement specifically stated that after receiving the intimation about alleged accident, OP appointed Shri M.K. Arora licensed Surveyor & Loss Assessor approved by IRDA to assess the alleged loss, who has submitted his report dated 28.01.2021 wherein he has specifically mentioned that there is actual payable loss of Rs.33,500/- including less policy excess clause of Rs.1000/- and salvage value of  Rs.734/-. OP No.1 had already paid the said claim of Rs.33285/- to the insured/complainant vide NEFT UTR No.68967959 dated 10.02.021 towards full and final settlement of claim as per surveyor report. As such, there is no deficiency in services on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with costs.

5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6.

6.                On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-A to Annexure R-C.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is registered owner of Car Maruti Alto bearing No.HR-31Q-8633, which was fully insured w.e.f. 11.02.2020 to 10.02.2021 with OP No.1 vide policy No.34280031200160017288. He further argued that on 15.12.2020, the said car met with an accident, being driven by the complainant and after the accident, the complainant shifted the car to OP No.3 (authorized service station of OPs No.1 & 2) for repair of car, who checked the car and make the total estimate of damaged car to the tune of Rs.46204/- + 2000/- as crane charges. He further argued that OPs No.1 & 2 deputed Deepak as Investigator to assess the loss, who inspected the damaged car, but OPs No.1 & 2 had paid only Rs.33,285/- to the complainant, while the actual amount of repair invoice/bill, issued by OP No.3 was of Rs.46204/- + Rs.2000/-, as such, OPs No.1 & 2 paid less amount of Rs.15019/- to him. He further argued that the complainant requested OPs No.1 & 2 various times to make the balance payment of claim amount, but all in vain, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that after receiving the intimation about alleged accident, OP appointed Shri M.K. Arora licensed Surveyor & Loss Assessor approved by IRDA to assess the alleged loss, who has submitted his report dated 28.01.2021 wherein he has specifically mentioned that there is actual payable loss of Rs.33,500/- including less policy excess clause of Rs.1000/- and salvage value of  Rs.734/-. OP No.1 had already paid the said claim of Rs.33285/- to the insured/complainant vide NEFT UTR No.68967959 dated 10.02.021 towards full and final settlement of claim as per surveyor report. As such, there is no deficiency in services on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with costs.

10.              Undisputedly, complainant is the owner of Car Maruti Alto bearing No.HR-31Q-8633, vide Registration Certificate Annexure C-1 and said car was insured w.e.f. 11.02.2020 to 10.02.2021 with OP No.1, vide policy No.34280031200160017288 Annexure C-2.

11.              On 15.12.2020, the said car met with an accident and OP No.3 make the total estimate of damaged car to the tune of Rs.46204/- + 2000/-, as is evident from documents Annexure C-3 to C-5. OPS deposited claim amount of Rs.33285/- in the account of complainant vide document Annexure C-6. OPs deputed M.K. Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Valuer to assess the loss, who inspected the damaged car and submitted his detailed report Annexure RA.

12.              The grievance of the complainant is that OP No.3 made estimate of repair of car in question to the tune of Rs.48204/-, but OPs No.1 & 2 had paid only Rs.33285/- to him i.e. less amount of Rs.15019/-, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

13.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has contended that as per surveyor report Annexure RA, OPs No.1 & 2 had already paid Rs.33285/- to the complainant, vide NEFT UTR No.68967959 dated 10.02.2021 towards full and final settlement of claim, vide Claim Assessment  Sheet Annexure RB and Annexure RC. As such, there is no deficiency in services on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.

14.              From Surveyor Report Annexure RA, we found that said surveyor had assessed the total loss payable to the tune of Rs.33500/-, out of which, OPs No.1 & 2 has paid Rs.33285/-, to the complainant, as per Claim Assessment Sheet, which was also admitted, by the complainant, in his complaint.

15.              Learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has further contended that the surveyor is an independent person, so, report of surveyor Annexure-RA, is taken into consideration, for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments titled United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. Further in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal, II (2009) CPJ, 45 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the surveyor’s report being important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to contrary on record. Since in the case in hand, report of the surveyor Annexure RA is well explained and detailed one, therefore, in view of above-mentioned case laws of superior Fora, we are of the view that OPs are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss, as assessed by the surveyor, in his report Annexure RA, to the tune of Rs.33,500/- and not Rs.48304/-, as demanded by the complainant and the said amount of Rs.33500/- (as assessed by the surveyor) has already been paid by OPs No.1 & 2 to the complainant, after making necessary deductions, which has also been admitted by the complainant in his complaint himself, as such, nothing remains due qua OPs No.1 & 2.

16.              Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has further contended that complainant had already made two roadside accident with the car in question,  and the OPs had already made payment of said claim amount to the complainant and produced documents in this regard as Mark-X and Mark-Y respectively on the case file. From perusal of document Mark-X, we found that the vehicle in question was got damaged in an accident on 01.07.2019 and OPs had paid Rs.20987/- to the complainant, as per surveyor report. Further from perusal of document Mark-Y, we found that the complainant again got damaged the vehicle in question in an accident of 02.09.2019 and OPs had paid Rs.12245/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor. This time the vehicle in question of complainant got damaged in a roadside accident on 15.12.2020 and this time also, OPs No.1 & 2 had paid the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.33285/- to the complainant.

17.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, therefore, the present is also liable to be dismissed.

18.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, we found no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same, it being devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:04.01.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.