Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/114

Harjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Bikramjit Singh Brar

13 Jan 2015

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      114

Date of Institution:  29.08.2014

Date of Decision :   13.01.2015

 

 

Harjeet Singh s/o S Sardool Singh r/o Kothe Danewalian, Sandhawan, District Faridkot.                                                                                   

                                                                                      ...Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Branch Office, Near Old Bus Stand, Jaitu Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                             

                                                                           ... Opposite Party(OP)

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P L Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh B S Brar, Adv Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ashok Monga, Adv Ld Counsel for OP.

 

(A K Mehta, President)

                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against United India Insurance Co/OP seeking directions to OP to make payment of claim amount pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no. PB04 K 1495 model 2005 and for further directing OP to pay Rs 80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Swift Car bearing Registration No. PB04K-1495, Model 2005 of complainant was duly insured with OP vide  Insurance Policy bearing Cover Note No. 2012023112003214 and it was valid from 22.10.2012 to 21.10.2013 against all types of loss; that at the time of getting insured the vehicle, OP assured the complainant that he would be entitled to full claim in case of any damage to the car; that on 31.08.2013 at about 9.00 p.m, when son of complainant Jasdeep Singh was driving the car, suddenly, the said car met with an accident at Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot, but as there was no loss of life, therefore, Police did not record any Report regarding the accident; that on intimation by complainant to OP regarding said accident, OP deputed Sh Ashok Kumar Bansal, Surveyor on 4.09.2013, who gave false report and assessed the estimate of loss worth Rs 1,52,800/- in accident and thereafter, accidental car was again got surveyed from Pankaj Motors, Moga, which made estimate for damaged car worth Rs 3,11,393/-; that the car of complainant was completely damaged in the accident and it could not be got repaired and for this reason, complainant kept requesting OP to give full claim of insured vehicle but OP kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other; that complainant also made written application, but despite that, complainant was not given full claim for damaged insured vehicle and thereafter, complainant served legal notice dt 29.03.2014 through his counsel to OP, but OP did not give any reply; that complainant made repeated requests to OP for making payment of his claim, but OP failed to make payment of his lawful claim, and this conduct of the OP has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for directing the OP to pay Rs 80,000/- as compensation alongwith full claim of insurance of damaged vehicle. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9.09.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that present complaint is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed and it involves complex questions of law and facts, which need thorough inquiry and investigation and recording of evidence at length, which is not possible with limited jurisdiction and limited time span given in the Consumer Protection Act and is liable to be referred to the Civil Court; that complaint is premature as claim has neither been accepted nor repudiated and it is vague and discloses no cause of action as no detail has been given as to how the alleged amount of Rs 3,11,393/- and Rs 80,000/- is calculated and arrived at by the complainant, therefore, complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OP has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant and asserted that claim is paid only after completion of formalities and as per terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and as per law; that accident took place on 31.08.2013, but complainant gave intimation regarding  accident to answering OP only on 4.09.2014 and no FIR was lodged with Police and moreover, damaged vehicle was immediately removed by the driver to his residence, thereby, preventing the Company from getting the first hand information of factual position at the spot; that on receipt of information regarding accident, OP appointed Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle at the residence of insured and assessed the loss, but complainant never wanted to get the vehicle repaired and thereafter, complainant at his own submitted the estimate from K D Motor Garage, Kotkapura and later on shifted the vehicle to M/s Pankaj Motors, Moga and submitted fresh exaggerated estimate in respect of alleged loss; that after taking into consideration all the aspects and damage caused, documents submitted and market value of the vehicle and after thorough inquiry and investigation, the independent Surveyor, Sh Ashok Kumar Bansal assessed the loss at Rs 1,35,000/- in consultation with insured and complainant/insured being fully satisfied, gave his consent in writing to settle the claim at Rs 1,35,000/- on the net of salvage basis. It was asserted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. 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-19 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of A K Kanojia Sr. Divisional Manager Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-10  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 on the file.

8                                   The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant is owner of vehicle no PB04K-1495 and got the same insured with the OP vide cover note Ex C-16 for the period from 22.10.2012 to 21.10.2013. He further contended that unfortunately, car met with an accident on 31.08.2013 when Jasdeep Singh son of complainant was driving the car but as no injury was caused to any person, therefore, report was not got registered with the Police regarding accident. He further contended that intimation regarding the accident was also given to OP Insurance Company and OP deputed Sh Ashok Kumar Bansal as Surveyor, who visited the spot on 4.09.2013 and inspected the spot and vehicle and gave the wrong estimate report that the car suffered loss of Rs 1,52,800/- and due to this reason, car was got surveyed from Pankaj Motors, Moga, who estimated the loss at Rs 3,11,393/-. He contended that the car in question has been totally damaged and is beyond repair and due to this reason, complainant requested the OP Insurance Company to pay the total insurance amount but OP postponed the matter on one or the other pretext and ultimately, complainant served a legal notice through his counsel on 29.03.2014, but no reply was given by the OP. He further contended that act and conduct of the OP for keeping pending the claim of complainant has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs 80,000/-. He contended that complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled to claim amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

 9                   The Ld Counsel for OP admitted that the car in question was insured with the OP for Rs 2,00,000/- for the period from 22.10.2012 to 21.10.2013. He also admitted that accident of the car took place on 31.08.2013 but complainant took the car to his house after the accident rather than intimating the OP Insurance Company and then, he took the car to the K D Motor Garage, Kotkapura and then to Pankaj Motors, Moga at his own level and due to this reason, OP Insurance Company could not conduct the spot inspection. He contended that complainant filed the claim in the case in hand and OP also appointed Surveyor to assess the loss, who after inspecting the car, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 1,35,000/-and Surveyor also consulted and discussed the loss with the complainant and complainant being fully satisfied with the assessment of the Surveyor, gave his consent in writing to settle the claim for Rs 1,35,000/-on net of salvage basis. He also contended that Surveyor has never assessed the loss at Rs 1,52,800/- or for Rs 3,11,393/- and as such, complainant is not entitled to these amounts, particularly when, complainant gave his consent to settle the claim for Rs 1,35,000/- in his own hand writing and as such, complaint filed by the complainant is false and is liable to be dismissed.

 10                  After going through record of the case, evidence and documents produced bythe parties on file, this Forum does not find force in the contentions of the ld counsel for complainant. Complainant has not proved any report of Sh Ashok Kumar Bansal, Surveyor vide which estimate of loss was assessed at Rs 1,52,800/-. It is correct that complainant has proved estimate of loss prepared by Pankaj Motors, Moga at Rs 3,11,393.87/-, but it is not correct estimate as even insured value of the car in question was fixed at Rs 2,00,000/-. Otherwise also, the estimate report Ex C-9 prepared by Pankaj Motors, Moga is dated 18.09.2013 and accident took place on 31.08.2013 and it shows that till 18.09.2013, the car had not been repaired and the report Ex C-9 is only estimate of loss and actual loss definitely vary after actual repair and the complainant has not filed any report of loss after repair of the car. Usually, in estimate, the price of the part is assessed as loss, whereas during actual repair that part may be used even after minor repair or after some denting and painting. Such an estimate report Ex C-9 cannot be made basis for actual loss to the vehicle. On the contrary, OP has proved report of Er. Ashok Kumar Bansal, Surveyor, who gave his Survey Report Ex C-6, which is quite in detail and complainant has not given any reason for ignoring Survey Report Ex OP-6. Otherwise, Surveyor Ashok Kumar Bansal is technical expert and gave his Survey Report which is very much in detail and report of the Surveyor cannot be ignored, unless some plausible or good reason is brought on file by the complainant. As already discussed earlier, complainant has not brought on file any reason in order to ignore the report of the Surveyor Ex OP-6, rather OP has proved writing Ex OP-7, which is in the hand writing of complainant Harjeet Singh in which he has given his consent to settle his claim for Rs 1,35,000/- and accepted the same as claim amount for his claim case and in this eventuality, it does not lie in the mouth of complainant that amount of Rs 1,35,000/- is not sufficient for loss caused to his car in the accident or he is not satisfied and  as such, complainant is not entitled to any amount other than Rs1,35,000/-.

 11                  In the light of above discussion, the complaint is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 13.01.2015

                                   Member            Member                  President

 (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (A K Mehta)