Haryana

StateCommission

A/935/2015

DIGVIJAY JAKHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.DAARIA

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      935 of 2015

Date of Institution:      23.10.2015

Date of Decision :       22.07.2016

 

Digvijay Jakhar Resident of A-92, Preet Vihar, Rohtak, District Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Neeraj Sekhri, Senior Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Delhi Road, D Park, Rohtak-124001.

2.      Harsh Tiwari, Deputy Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 123-124, Sector 17-B, IV Floor, Chandigarh.

3.      Lakh K. Shimray Administrative Officer, UNI Customer Care Department, United Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

         

Present:               Appellant in person.

                             Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Digvijay Jakhar-complainant (appellant herein), got his car (Tata Indigo) bearing registration No.HR-16J-6768 insured with United Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) for the period December 22^nd, 2012 to December 21^st, 2013,  vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-4/A. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.3,49,747/-.

2.      On July 31^st, 2013 the car was damaged in an accident. The Insurance Company was informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company estimated the loss at Rs.1,91,340.76 on repair basis. The car was got repaired from Raj Motors, Rohtak by incurring expenses of Rs.99,374/-, however, the Insurance Company paid Rs.60,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), seeking  direction to the respondents-opposite parties to pay Rs.3450/- on account of crane toeing charges; Rs.39,374/- on account of spare parts and repair work alongwith interest  @ 18% per annum and compensation etcetera.

3.      The respondents-opposite parties in their reply pleaded that the complainant was paid Rs.60,000/- as per report (Exhibit C-1) of the surveyor besides Rs.1500/- towards toeing charges, therefore, nothing more was payable to the complainant.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated September 24^th, 2015 allowed complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…it is observed that the deduction of Rs.3146/- from the labour charges is not justifiable and without any cogent reason. However, as per the statement dated 24.08.2015, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.1500/- on account of towing charges. In these circumstances it is directed that the opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.3146/- (Rupees three thousand one hundred and forty six only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.09.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.”

5.      Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has come up for enhancement of the amount awarded by the District Forum.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has urged that the surveyor of the Insurance Company had estimated the loss at Rs.1,91,340.76, however, he actually incurred Rs.99,374/- on the repair of his car from Raj Motors, Rohtak. So, the complainant was entitled to the entire amount spent by him on the repair of his car. It was further contended that only the items allowed by the surveyor vide report (Exhibit C-1) have been replaced, however, counsel further submits that the surveyor has taken the price of the parts at a lesser rate than charged by the dealer. In support, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on the file the difference of rate (Annexure-A), as mentioned by the surveyor in his report, and as charged by the dealer in the bill.

7.      A perusal of the report (Annexure-A) shows that the difference comes to Rs.21,968.29. Out of this, a sum of Rs.6078/- has already been received by the complainant pursuance to the orders passed by the District Forum and the difference of amount that remains to be paid, is Rs.15,890.29 rounded to Rs.16,000/-. In view of this, it is held that the respondents-opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.16,000/- to the appellant-complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. It is ordered accordingly.

8.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced: 22.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL