DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  269

                                                Instituted on:    12.06.2018

                                                Decided on:       30.08.2018

Lal Singh aged about 45 years S/o Ram Singh R/O Near G.G.School, Patiala Bypass Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Railway Road, Sangrur, Tehsil & District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :               Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For OP                     :               Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

1.             Shri Lal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his Chevrolet Sail car bearing registration number PB-13-AR-4651 vide insurance policy number 1117003117P-106956727  for the period from 14.8.2017 to 13.8.2018. The grievance of the complainant is that on 24.3.2018 the complainant  along with his son Satwinder Singh were coming from Village Dadhonheri to Sangrur and when they reached near village Khurana, then suddenly a stray animal came in front of the car and the complainant to save the car from accident applied break and due to this the car hit the pillar on the road side, as such when he came out from the car and found that suddenly the car in question caught fire and damaged badly to the tune of 90% i.e. total damage.  Thereafter the complainant immediately informed the OP, who appointed the surveyor to asses the loss.  The complainant also reported the matter to the PS Sadar Sunam vide DDR number 15 dated 25.3.2018.  Thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with the OP, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, that the complaint is premature, false, frivolous, malafide, mischievous  one, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP for the period from 14.8.2017 to 13.8.2018 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for Rs.4,50,000/-. It is further admitted that after receipt of the intimation, the OP immediately deputed Shri Pushpinder Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. It is further averred that thereafter the OP appointed approved surveyor Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma for the assessment of the loss and he was advised the complainant to put the vehicle for repair, but the complainant never put the vehicle for repair.  The surveyor after making necessary deductions as per the terms and conditions of the policy, assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,53,371/-. Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP, but all in vain.  It is further averred that if the Forum comes to the conclusion then claim amount should not be more than the assessed amount of Rs.2,53,471/-. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the claim with special cost.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/12 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

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

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his car bearing registration number PB-13-AR-4651 for the period from 14.8.2017 to 13.8.2018 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.8758/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured comprehensively for Rs.4,50,000/- only.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question damaged badly and suffered huge loss by fire during the subsistence of the insurance policy and it is further not in dispute that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP about the accident, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents to the OP, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not got repaired the vehicle from the repairer, as such it is contended that no claim was payable.  But, we are unable to go with such a contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the claim is not payable to the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP insured the car in question on comprehensive basis by charging the requisite premium amount from the complainant and during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the car in question met with an accident and thereafter got fire and damaged badly and the surveyor of the Op assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,53,371/- as is evident from the copy of the survey report Ex.OP-10 on record. Under the circumstances, we feel that the OP cannot deny the claim on this score alone and it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP by not paying the insurance claim of the complainant in toto.

6.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the vehicle has suffered total loss, but we have also perused on record the copy of survey report submitted by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Ex.OP-10, whereby he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,53,371/- and as such we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP  is directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,53,371/- only as assessed by the surveyor in his report, Ex.OP-10.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,53,371/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.06.2018 till realisation in full. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of  litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OP within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order. 

8.              A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                                August 30, 2018.

                                                   (Sarita Garg)

                                                Presiding Member

                                             (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                       Member