DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 52
Instituted on: 02.02.2017
Decided on: 23.05.2017
Ramvir Sharma S/o Faggu Ram, resident of H.No.65, Ward No.3 Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. City Road, NRG Complex, 1st Floor, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its MD/GM.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Sandeep Goyal, Adv.
For Opp.parties : Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Ramvir Sharma, 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 bearing registration number PB-13-AF-8378 by purchasing insurance policy number 1117023115P100824007 for the period from 16.4.2015 to 15.4.2016 by paying the requisite premium to the OPs. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 3.6.2015, the truck in question met with an accident near Jalandhar ahead of bus stand Kishangarh within the revenue jurisdiction of PS Bhogpur. It is further averred that after the above said accident, the complainant intimated the Ops to get the insurance claim and on the advice of the Ops, the complainant got repaired the truck in question and spent an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, but the OPs passed the bill for Rs.2,51,500/- only and the remaining amount was not paid despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. 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 insurance claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- 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 there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, that the complaint is false, baseless and without any basis and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs for the period from 16.4.2015 to 15.4.2016 for Rs.20,00,000/-. It has been denied that the vehicle in question was badly damaged. However, it is admitted that after receipt of the intimation of accident, the OP appointed Shri Jasjeet Sing Hora, surveyor and loss assessor of Jalandhar for spot inspection, who visited the spot and took photographs and submitted his report dated 15.6.2015. Thereafter the OPs appointed Shri Sanjeev Mahajan of Chandigarh for assessment of the loss, who submitted his report dated 30.12.2015 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,57,796/- and salvage of Rs.7796/- was deducted and the remaining amount of Rs.2,51,500/- was paid to the complainant on the basis of the survey report. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 copies of documents and affidavit 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 dismissal, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration number PB-13-AF-8378 from the OP number 1 and 2 for the period from 16.04.2015 to 15.04.2016 for Rs.20,00,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.33,197/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-12 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 03.06.2015 near Jalandhar and the complainant gave intimation to the Ops about the accident of the vehicle, as such, the OPs appointed Shri Jasjeet Singh Hora, surveyor and loss assessor of Jalandhar for the spot inspection and thereafter the Ops appointed Shri Sanjeev Mahajan of Chandigarh, surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,57,796/- and he further assessed the value of salvage as Rs.7796/-and as such, the complainant has already been paid an amount of Rs.2,51,500/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex.OP-10. On the other hand, the stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on the repairs of the truck in question and to prove this fact the complainant has produced on record the copies of the bills, which are on record as Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-11, but we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that he spent an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- , whereas the OPs have produced on record the survey report Ex.OP-10, submitted by Sanjeev Mahajan, which clearly reveals that he allowed the repairs of the truck as per the allocations furnished in the report and taking into consideration the spot survey report of Er. Jasjeet Singh Hora and Company. Further we may mention that the complainant has not produced on record any copy of the bill of the repairer, more so when the bills are issued by M/s.Mittal Motor Store, Narwana on account of purchase of various parts, which itself seems in excessive range nor M/s. Mittal Motor Store is an authorised dealer of the manufacturer of the vehicle. As such, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that he spent an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on the repair of the truck in question. It is worth mentioning here that the OPs have already paid an amount of Rs.2,51,500/- to the complainant on 6.6.2016, as is evident from the copy of bank statement on record as Ex.C-5. We have also perused the affidavit of the surveyor, Shri Sanjeev Mahajan, Ex.OP-3, wherein it is clearly stated that he went to the premises of the repairer on 18.6.2015 and inspected the vehicle thoroughly, noted down the damages carefully, took photographs from different angles and discussed with the repairer and insured and worked out the loss and prepared the report dated 30.12.2015 and assessed the net value of loss of Rs.2,57,796/- , as such, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong on the part of the Ops and the claim has already been settled and the due amount of the claim has been paid to the complainant. Reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission pronounced in Ashish Kumar Jaiswal versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd and others 2017(1) CPJ 529, wherein it has been held that the report of surveyor/surveyors appointed under provisions of Insurance Act are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient ground not to agree with the assessment made by them, as no specific shortcoming is pointed out in the surveyors report and the petitioner has failed to put forward any cogent reasons to dispute the surveyors report and hence there is no reason to reject it and the interference was declined. The same is the position in the present case, as the complainant has not alleged any specific reason to discard the survey report of the surveyor. The same is the position in another case namely IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Beena Raghav 2015(3) CPJ 75 (NC). Wherein it has been held that the report prepared by the surveyor was of significant and evidentiary value and cannot be ignored and dismissed as such by saying that “assessed loss” cannot be considered trustworthy without giving valid reason.
6. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
May 23, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
