DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 005
Instituted on: 03.01.2017
Decided on: 05.05.2017
Kirpal Singh S/o Sh Surjit Singh R/O Near Holy Heart School, Tiba Basti, Village Chhaji, Tehsil Sunam, Distric Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, City Road, NRG Complex, 1st Floor, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.
For Opp. parties : Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Kirpal Singh, 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 (tralla) make Tata bearing registration number PB-13-AL-9976 from the OPs for Rs.28,50,000/- vide insurance policy number 1117023115P107524826 for the period from 27.09.2015 to 26.09.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.52,999/-. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 14.9.2016 with a tempo baring registration number PB-13-AL-9271 near Malerkotla bye pass Dhuri and both the vehicles suffered heavy loss, but the matter was compromised between the parties. It is further averred that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by driver Gurdeep Singh.
2. Further case of the complainant is that after the accident, the truck of the complainant was brought at Shadi Chaudhary Motors, Dhuri Road, Malerkotla (authorised service station of Tata Motors) and intimated about the accident to the OPs, who appointed surveyor to conduct the survey of loss of the truck in question. The surveyor of the OPs took documents and photographs of the damaged truck and got signed various blank documents. The estimate was got prepared from the repairer. After the completion of the repair work, the OPs again inspected the truck and also took invoice dated 16.10.2016 prepared by the repairer which was for Rs.4,16,714/- and besides this a tyre was purchased for Rs.19,100/-. Now, the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not settle the claim despite repeated visits to the OPs without assigning any reason. Thus, 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 amount of Rs.4,35,814/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
3. In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that there are complicated questions of law and facts involved in the present case, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation and that the complaint is not within limitation. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs for the period from 27.9.2015 to 26.9.2016 for commercial purposes for Rs.28,50,000/- only. It is further averred that after receiving the intimation dated 14.9.2016, the Ops appointed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor who submitted his report dated 17.9.2016. Later on the Ops appointed M/s. Eminent Surveyors for assessing the final loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,867/-. It is further averred that the surveyor recommended repair of the cabin and he instructed the repairer not to replace the cabin of the truck in question as the same was repairable, but the insured replaced the cabin inspite of refusal by the surveyor, therefore, the surveyor assessed Rs.50,000/- for repair of the cabin. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/23 affidavits and documents and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party 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.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question for Rs.28,50,000/- with the OPs by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy on record as Ex.C-1.
7. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 14.09.2016, intimation of which was given to the OPs, as such after receipt of the intimation, the OPs immediately appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor to asses the loss and also submitted his spot report, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-3. Thereafter the Ops appointed M/s. Eminent Surveyors for assessing the final loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,867/-.
8. In the present case, the dispute between the parties is over the quantum of claim. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.4,16,714/- plus Rs.19,100/- spent on a damaged tyre, whereas the surveyor of the Ops has assessed the loss of the truck in question to the tune of Rs.1,62,867/- as is evident from the copy of survey report Ex.OP-17. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant got repaired the truck in question from the approved repairer meaning thereby authorised service station of Tata Motors i.e. M/s. Shadi Chaudhary Motors, Malerkotla, who also issued invoice dated 16.10.2016 for Rs.4,16,714/- and further has produced a bill dated 20.09.2016 for Rs.19,100/- for purchase of a tyre of the truck which was damaged in the accident. In the present case the surveyor has assessed that the cabin was fully repairable, whereas the insured/complainant got it replaced fully against the wishes of the surveyor. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that if surveyor does not agree with the estimate of the repair etc given by the complainant, then he should unless go by the cost of repair, if any, fixed by the manufacturer, or to obtain estimate from some other workshop and it is the only basis of such a quotation/estimate that he can reject the estimate obtained by the insurer. Alternatively, he can make enquiry from some other workshops and note down the particulars of the workshop along with the charges quoted by it. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Rama Nanda 2016(2) CLT 137 (NC) In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the surveyor of the OPs M/s. Eminent Surveyors took any such steps in the matter. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended vehemently that the report of the surveyor is not ultimate document to reach at a conclusion to allow or not to allow the claim and the courts had to apply their mind also. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in Suresh Chand Jain versus Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 2016(2) CLT 409.
9. We have also perused the Photostat copies of the photographs of the accidental vehicle in question which are on record as Ex.OP-4 to EX.Op-12, which clearly show that the loss to the cabin was not in total and it seems that the cabin was repairable. The complainant has produced on record the copy of invoice issued by the approved repairer Ex.C-4, whereby the complainant is shown to has spent an amount of Rs.4,16,714/-, but then we feel that if the complainant has got replaced the cabin of the truck, then he must have to bear some loss on that account. The complainant has mentioned various items in the estimate, but the same are not in the invoice and have been added some new items. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why it is so. It is also worth mentioning here that there is no mention of the damage of the tyre anywhere in the survey report, as such, we are unable to accept such a contention of the complainant that he spent an amount of Rs.19,100/- for purchase of a tyre. As such, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the claim of the complainant is allowed with 30% deduction of the invoice amount. When calculated the amount payable to the complainant comes to Rs.2,91,700/- (Rs.4,16,714/- minus Rs.125014/-)
10. 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.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,91,700/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 03.01.2017 till realisation. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.
12. 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.
May 5, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
