BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Bhupinder Nagpal son of late Sh. Ram Chand r/o 3233, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.        United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 178, 178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address : SCO 78-79, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2.        Kailash Chandra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, #242, Sector 18, Panchkula 134109.

3.        A B Motors Pvt. Ltd., 53, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh.

                     ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Satish Bhatti, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. G.D. Gupta, Adv. for OPs 1 & 2.

Sh. Harjot Singh Bedi, Adv. for OP-3

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             Comprehensively stated the complainant was the owner of a Ford Fiesta car which was insured with the OP-1 from 23.4.2009 to 22.4.2010. The car met with an accident on 14.11.2009 and was extensively damaged.  On the advice of OP-1, the complainant drove the vehicle to OP-3 for preparation of rough estimate and repair.  OP-2 was appointed as the surveyor for assessing the amount of damage. 

              As per the complainant, even though the car was extensively damaged, OP-2 tried to convince him that he should accept Rs.1.85 lacs as full and final settlement on cash loss basis.  After obtaining his consent, this amount was given to the complainant.

              But the complainant was dis-satisfied with the payment received. So, he thereafter served a legal notice on the OPs and thereby withdrew his consent for the amount.  He also asked the OPs for enhancement of the amount received by declaring the car as a total loss. Since the OPs did not comply with the request of the complainant to settle his claim on total loss basis, the complainant has filed the instant complaint alleging unfair trade practice against the OPs.  He has demanded Rs.6.57 lacs as compensation towards the cost of the car alongwith further compensation for damages and delay as well as costs of litigation.  

2.        OP-1 in their written reply have taken the preliminary objection that the claim filed by the complainant was settled as full and final settlement after obtaining the written consent from him on 9.12.209 on “cash loss basis”. Subsequently, the complainant received a cheque dated 20.1.2010 for Rs.1,83,000/- from the OPs.  They have further submitted that when the car of the complainant  met with an accident, the complainant submitted  the estimates of repair from M/s Bhagat Ford for a sum of Rs.4,89,119.16. Since the amount was on the higher side, Shri Kailash Chandra, surveyor and loss assessor who is an automobile engineer was appointed on 23.1.2009 to assess the loss. The surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle and after discussions with the complainant reached the conclusion that it would be in the interest of the case to settle the loss for Rs.1,83,000/- on cash loss basis.  The following details have been stated in the reply :-

              “The loss was assessed on repair basis for Rs.2,88,158/- after deducting depreciating on metal parts @ 10% & 50% on plastic & rubber parts and excess clause of Rs.500/-.  The salvage value was determined at Rs.9000/-. Since the insured categorically denied to get the vehicle repaired.  On his request, the loss was assessed on Cash Loss basis.  In cash loss settlement the insurers do not demand the bills/cash memos, since the insured has not paid the taxes, the taxes are deducted from the assessments.  The insured is free to repair certain parts recommended for replacement and may get the repairs done accordingly to his own choice by using 2^nd hand/spurious parts, a margin @30% is also deducted by the insurer, the cost of salvage is also deducted, therefore, the amount of Rs.1,83,000/- was recommended to be paid to the insured by the surveyor.”

After this acceptance by the complainant, the OPs contend that the demands of the complainant are now unjustified and unnecessary and the complaint needs dismissal.

3.        OP-2 in his separate written reply submitted that upon receipt of instructions from OP-1 he conducted the survey on 24.11.2009 and submitted interim report on 9.12.2009. The final survey report was prepared on 31.12.2009 on cash loss basis to the tune of Rs.1,83,000/-.  It has been stated that he acted within the four corners of his authority and that he has been unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation.  Accordingly he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint against him.
4.        OP-3 in their written reply have submitted that the car was taken to their workshop by the complainant under the instructions of OP-1.  They have only made an estimate of the damage to the car.  In fact the complainant has no grouse against them except for charging the amount of Rs.10,000/- and not allowing the complainant to take away the car unless he paid the amount.  It was in fact disclosed to the complainant that he would have to pay 5% of the total amount of the estimated repair calculated if the vehicle was not got repaired from them. The complainant had accepted this condition.  In view of the above, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 
5.        All parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.        We have heard the ld. counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record including the written arguments. 
7.        The grouse of the complainant is that after his car was damaged in an accident, the OPs should have passed the claim for total loss since the car had been extensively damaged.  The estimate prepared by OP-3 for Rs.4,98,119.16 was more than 75% of the value of the car. OPs 1 & 2 in their reply have specifically stated that the estimate prepared by the complainant was far beyond the assessment by the surveyor.  The surveyor had assessed the value of the car on repair basis at Rs.2,88,158/- and on cash loss basis at Rs.1,83,000/-. This payment had been offered to the complainant and he had accepted the cheque of Rs.1,83,000/-. The OPs have placed on record their bank statement of HDFC Bank where the amount has been released in favour of the complainant. After this acceptance the OPs feel that the contentions of the complainant are not justified or maintainable at this stage.  OP-3 has been made a party only because they have made a claim of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for preparing the estimate. 
8.        The ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors.-1999(2) CPC 601 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the complainant failed to prove that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or coercion, he is not entitled to any relief.   Further, it is now well settled that the surveyor’s report is an important document and the same cannot be dismissed summarily.  Once the assessment is made by the surveyor, no further amount can be paid to the insurer.
9.        The mandate of the Apex Court is clear.  The claim has been accepted by the complainant in full and final and the claimant (complainant) should not now ask for any further relief from the OPs. 
10. In view of the above observations we are of the opinion that this complaint bears no merit and needs to be dismissed.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.