Punjab

Sangrur

CC/57/2017

Daman Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sanjeev Goyal

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    57

                                                Instituted on:      07.02.2017

                                                Decided on:       01.06.2017

 

Daman Goyal aged about 25 years son of Bir Chand, resident of Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office: Railway Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager;

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Ankur Bhawan, The Lower Mall, Opposite Polo Ground, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Daman Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his truck LPS 4018 bearing registration number PB-13-AR-8220 for the period from 15.09.2016 to 14.09.2017 for Rs.17,10,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.52,983/-. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 13.10.2016, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on Khanal-Gujjran road and damaged, intimation of which was given to the Ops. Thereafter the Ops appointed Shri Bhupesh Bhardwaj for spot survey and on the instructions of the surveyor, the vehicle in question was brought to United Brothers Engineering Works, Khanna, who prepared the estimate for Rs.2,18,767/-.  Thereafter the Ops appointed K.P.S.Oberoi surveyor for assessing the final loss, who passed the claim for Rs.1,97,100/- against the expenditure of Rs.2,22,497/- and the Ops also intimated that the claim is being settled at Rs.1,97,100/-, but the Ops again appointed another surveyor, who assessed the claim at Rs.1,47,000/-, which is said to be deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. As such,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,18,767/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is premature as the claim has not been repudiated or denied by the Ops.  On merits, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the Ops under policy number 1110003116P107972825 for the period from 15.9.2016 to 14.9.2017.  It is also admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident and after receipt of intimation, the Ops appointed Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj, surveyor and loss assessor for spot inspection, who visited the spot and took photographs and submitted his report dated 24.10.2016.  Further case of the Ops is that thereafter the Ops appointed Shri KPS Oberoi Surveyor and Loss assessor for assessment the loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.1,95,628/- and thereafter the said surveyor submitted his Ad random report and assessed the loss at Rs.1,51,628/- from which the salvage value of Rs.17,000/- is required to be deducted and by this way the surveyor assessed the net loss payable to the complainant at Rs.1,34,628/-. It has been denied that the Ops ever appointed second surveyor and it is stated further that after considering the ad random report of the surveyor, the OPs recommended the claim for Rs.1,36,700/- and this amount of Rs.1,36,700/- has already been paid to the complainant on 5.2.2017.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration number PB-13-AR-8220 from the OP number 1 and 2 for the period from 15.09.2016 to 14.09.2017 for Rs.17,10,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.52,983/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 13.10.2016 on Khanal Gujjran road and suffered loss as such, the complainant gave intimation to the Ops about the accident of the vehicle, as such, the OPs appointed Shri Bhupesh Bhardwaj, surveyor and loss assessor for spot inspection to assess the loss.  Accordingly, on the instructions of the surveyor, the complainant got repaired the vehicle in question  by spending an amount of Rs.2,18,767/- and thereafter the Ops appointed Shri KPS Oberoi surveyor and loss assessor for final loss caused to the complainant, who passed the claim for Rs.1,97,100/- and thereafter the surveyor  assessed the claim amount of Rs.1,47,100/- and as such after cost of salvage, the claim amount of Rs.1,36,700/- has been paid to the complainant on 5.2.2017.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops number 1 and 2 is that the claim amount of Rs.1,36,700/- has rightly been paid as per the survey report and nothing remains to be paid to the complainant. We have perused the copy of survey report dated 9.11.2016 of Er. K.P.S.Oberoi, who assessed the net loss payable to the complainant at Rs.1,95,328/- after deducting the salvage value at Rs.12,000/- as the net loss assessed on repair basis was Rs.207328/-, but it is surprised that the OPs have also produced a copy of ad random report Ex.OP-9, which carries no date, whereby  the net amount payable to the complainant has been shown as Rs.1,34,628/-, but there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that what was the necessity of calling for the ad interim report and on whose instructions the same was submitted by the surveyor without assigning any reason.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that  ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,95,328/- as per the survey report Ex.OP-7 on record.  It is worth mentioning here that an amount of Rs.1,36,700/- has already been paid and as such an amount of Rs.58,628/- (Rs.1,95,328/- minus Rs.136700/-) further remains to be paid to the complainant in view of the survey report Ex.OP-7.  Under the circumstances of the case, we find that the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not settling the claim fully as per the survey report Ex.OP-7.

 

6.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.58,628/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 07.02.2017 till realisation.   We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        June 1, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member