Haryana

Ambala

CC/57/2015

Mohinder Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance company limited. - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

        Complaint Case No. : 57 of 2015.

       Date of Institution    : 20.02.2015.

          Date of Decision      : 14.09.2017

 

Mohinder Singla son of Sh.Tej Ram Singla proprietor M/s Satyam Silk & Sarees, Shop No.1, First Floor New Cloth Market, Ambala City r/o H.No.1 First Floor New Cloth Market, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Bal Bhawan Road, Polytechnic Chowk Ambala City, Haryana through its Manager.

……Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Complainant in person.

                        Sh.Dev Batra, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of car I-20 bearing registration No.PB11AY-4454  and got the same insured with OP No.1 by paying the premium thereof.  The policy was effective from 27.06.2014 to 26.06.2015. On 09.08.2014, said vehicle met with an accident in Patiala and the complainant intimated about the same to the OP and thereafter on the directions of OP he left the car for repair work at authorized service centre of Hyundai i.e. Goyal Automobiles, Ashirwad Complex, Bahadurgarh, Patiala. Thereafter the complainant went abroad and the surveyor deputed by the OP completed all the formalities on 14.08.2014. On returning from abroad, the complainant received the vehicle from service centre after making the payment of Rs.69,565/-vide cash memo dated 27.10.2014 besides paying Rs.2790/- as survey charges vide bill dated 11.11.2014. The Op has also not paid no claim bonus of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant.  He approached the OP and also submitted all the requisite documents for settlement of claim but the OP wrongly and illegally paid the complainant only a meager amount of Rs.41,484/- on 06.01.2015.  Being unsatisfied with this amount, the complainant requested the Op many a times to pay the remaining amount of Rs.36871/- but it refused to do so which is clear cut deficiency in service on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.                     Upon notice, the Op appeared and contested the complaint by filing its reply wherein it has been submitted that an amount of Rs.41848/- has already been paid to the complainant on 06.01.2015, therefore, nothing is due towards the OP as the admissible claim has already been paid to the complainant. The surveyor in his report had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40694/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.1000/- each for salvage value and excess clause total amount comes to Rs.38,694/- but after adding Rs.2790/- the amount comes to Rs.41484/- which has already been paid to the complainant without any protest. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as the claim has been approved and paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Objections about maintainability, cause of action and jurisdiction etc. have also been taken. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the Op has tendered affidavits Annexure RX and Annexure RY besides tendering documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

5.                          Learned counsel for the complainant argued that he got his vehicle bearing registration No.PB11AY-4454 insured with OP vide insurance policy (Annexure C1) by paying requisite premium and said vehicle had met with an accident. The complainant had intimated the OP regarding this and also filed requisite documents with it for settlement of claim but the OP had paid/deposited Rs.41484/- on 06.01.2015 only against the total repair cost to the tune of Rs.69565/- as per invoice Annexure C2. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the OP had neither provided the complainant with surveyor report nor any opportunity to protest the claim was given to him.

6.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued that the complainant had already received an amount of Rs.41484/- from the OP with regard to the claim lodged by him on account of damaged vehicle and the said amount was accepted by him without lodging any protest either orally or in writing and even he had not offered to refund the amount as a mark of protest, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable as the amount has been received as full and final and the payment has been made as per assessment made by surveyor which has been assessed after considering the repair bill dated 27.10.2014 Annexure C2 for amount to Rs.69565/- and also keeping in view the estimated amount to the tune of Rs.179734.50 Annexure R5 (Surveyor report). The surveyor has followed the IRDA instructions qua the deduction of the plastic part and metal parts, depreciation on cost of paint material. In support of his contention he has placed reliance of case law titled as Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India (2006) (5) Supreme Court 311 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Conduct would only amount to acceptance if it is clear that the offeree did the act with the intention (actual or apparent) of accepting the offer-Each case must rest on its own facts- If facts disclose that the offeree had a reservation/protested in accepting the offer, his conduct may not amount to acceptance in terms of S.8 . It has been further held that in case protest and non-acceptance of the offer are conveyed before encashment of the cheque it would not amount to acceptance-However protesting after encashment of the cheque would be of no avail, as such encashment of the cheque would amount to unequivocal acceptance- An offeree cannot be permitted to change his mind after unequivocal acceptance of the offer.  Learned counsel for the OP drew the attention of this Forum towards Section 8 of the Contract Act which says that Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration-Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that when the complainant has already received and accepted the amount assessed by the surveyor without any protest then the complainant cannot agitate now this matter before this Forum and in support of his arguments he has placed reliance of case laws titled as H.C.Saxena Versus New India Assurance Co. & Anr. 2012 (1) CPC 632 and D.N. Badoni Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) CPC 528 wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Report of surveyor is an important document prepared under the legal provisions and should not be brushed aside without reasons”. Learned counsel for the OP has also relied upon case laws titled as Reliance General Insurance Vs. Mohan Singh decided on 24.02.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in FA No.1372 dated 2011, Royal Sundram Vs. Rajinder Singh decided by Hon’ble State Commsision Chandigarh in on 21.01.2013 in Appeal No.320 of 2012.

7.                          After hearing both the parties and going through the material available on the case file it is apparent clear that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.41484/- (including fee of surveyor i.e.Rs.2790/-) and said amount has already been deposited in the bank account of the complainant which the complainant has not rebutted.  After receiving the amount the complainant had not even offered to return the amount to the OP as a mark of protest which shows that the amount was received by the complainant un-conditionally. We have perused the surveyor report Annexure R5 as well as the affidavit Annexure RX filed by Sh.R.K.Bansal, Surveyor, Valuer, Loss Assessor in which it has been mentioned he had assessed the loss after following the IRDA instructions qua the deduction of the plastic part and metal parts, depreciation on cost of paint material.  It is  is settled proposition of law that Surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside unless there is cogent and convincing evidence. In the instant case also, no credible evidence has been produced on the basis of which Surveyor’s report could be dis-believed.

8.                In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity on the part of OP in assessing the loss occurred to the complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 14.09.2017                                           (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                         

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

        MEMBER                                              MEMBER