Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/277

Rakesh Chander Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anil Kumar Chawla

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                 277 of 2017

Date of Institution:     18.08.2017

Date of Decision :        5.03.2019

 

Rakesh Chander Gupta aged about 57 years son of Om Parkash Gupta r/o House No.23, Ward No.13, Krishna Gali No.2, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                                                        ...Complainant

Versus

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kotkapura, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                  .......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

* * * * * *

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ashok  Kumar Monga, Ld Counsel for OP.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to make payment of insurance claim worth Rs.

cc no. 277 of 2017

4, 46,705/- pertaining to repair of damaged truck of complainant and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of truck bearing registration no. PB-04N-8281 and truck of complainant was fully insured with OP vide Insurance Policy bearing no. 2012023116P103105347 valid for the period from 5.06.2016 to 4.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-.  It is submitted that on 20.03.2017, truck of complainant met with an accident and got damaged. Complainant got recorded DDR to this effect and also informed OP. On his intimation, OP appointed a Surveyor who made spot survey and conducted final survey regarding damage to his truck and thereafter, complainant completed all requisite formalities and lodged his claim with OP and also submitted estimate and supplementary estimate to OP through their Surveyor, but he was shocked to see that OP passed the claim only for Rs.1,69,350/-and did not clear the remaining claim amount. Complainant approached OP and made several requests to them to make payment of remaining claim amount, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OP to pay the remaining insurance claim alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

cc no. 277 of 2017

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.08.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                            On receipt of the notice, OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is without any cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. It is averred that complainant gave intimation regarding accident dated 20.03.2017 to them on 21.03.2017 and they immediately appointed a Surveyor Y P Singh who conducted spot survey and gave his report on 10.05.2017.  On 28.03.2017, OP appointed Vinod Kumar  as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who inspected the vehicle on 28.03.2017 during the repairs which were being conducted in the presence of complainant and repairer and said surveyor after thorough inspection and keeping in view the parts replaced and repairs carried out, assessed the loss to his vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,66,870/-. He submitted his final report on 7.07.2017 and thereafter, complainant gave his consent and agreed to accept the amount of Rs.1,66,281/-as assessed by Surveyor towards final settlement of his claim. After verification of all documents, they forwarded the claim to competent authority for approval and after due application of mind and as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, competent authority sanctioned claim for Rs.1,69,350/- i.e Rs.1,66,870/- for amount assessed and Rs.2,480/-as survey fee and total amount of Rs.1,69,350/-was paid to

cc no. 277 of 2017

complainant and nothing is due to be paid. It is further averred that present complaint involves complicated question of law and facts which is not possible in summary proceedings of this court. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and no cause of action arises against answering OP. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings taken in preliminary objections and have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-50 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of R N Bansal as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 and 15 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                         We have heard the arguments addressed by all the parties and have also gone through the evidence and documents led by the parties.

8                                  Ld Counsel for complainant argued that  truck bearing registration no. PB-04N-8281 of complainant was insured with OP vide Insurance Policy bearing no. 2012023116P103105347 effective from 5.06.2016 to 4.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-.  On

cc no. 277 of 2017

20.03.2017, truck of complainant met with an accident and got damaged. He gave intimation regarding accident to Police as well as OP. On this intimation, OP appointed a Surveyor who made spot survey and conducted final survey and then after completing all requisite formalities, he  lodged his claim with OP. He also submitted estimate and supplementary estimate to OP through Surveyor, but he was shocked to see that OP passed the claim on for Rs.1,69,350/-and did not clear the remaining claim amount. Complainant approached OP and made several requests for making  payment of remaining claim amount, but all in vain. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him. He has prayed for accepting the complaint.

9                                     To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for Ops argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part either in processing the claim or in making payment of claim amount to complainant. It is averred that present complaint is not maintainable as complainant has concealed the material facts and no cause of action arises against them. It is further argued that complainant informed about the said accident to them on 21.03.2017 and they immediately appointed a Surveyor,  who conducted spot survey and gave his report on 10.05.2017. On 28.03.2017, OP appointed Vinod Kumar  as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who inspected the vehicle on 28.03.2017 during the repairs being conducted in the presence of complainant and repairer. Said surveyor assessed the loss to his vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,66,870/- after thorough inspection and keeping in view the parts

cc no. 277 of 2017

replaced and repairs carried out and submitted his final report on 7.07.2017. Complainant gave his consent to accept the amount of Rs.1,66,281/- as assessed by Surveyor towards final settlement of his claim. After that competent authority of OP sanctioned claim for Rs.1,69,350/- i.e Rs.1,66,870/- for amount assessed and Rs.2,480/-as survey fee and total amount of Rs.1,69,350/-was paid to complainant and nothing is due to be paid. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and all the other allegations levelled by complainant have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

10                                    From the careful perusal of record and going through the affidavits, evidence and pleadings of the parties  and from the  above discussion, we come to the conclusion that there is no dispute about the insurance claim as it is admitted fact of OP that truck of complainant was insured under their insurance policy for Rs.12,00,000/- and they have themselves admitted in their written statement as well as before the Forum that they paid Rs.1,69,350/- towards insurance claim to complainant. It is observed that grievance of complainant is that his truck was insured under the insurance policy of OP for a sum of Rs. 12 lacs and during the validity of insurance period, his truck met with an accident. Complainant duly intimated Police and OP and also completed all formalities to obtain the insurance claim. OP paid only Rs.1,69,350/-on account of damage of his insured vehicle and despite repeated requests, OP did not clear the claim for remaining amount, which

cc no. 277 of 2017

amounts to deficiency in service and has cause harassment to him. In reply, plea taken by OP is that there is no deficiency in service on their part in processing and clearing the claim of complainant pertaining to accident of his truck. As per OP, they sanctioned the claim on account of accident of insured truck on the basis of report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor and paid the total amount of Rs.1,69,350/-to complainant and now nothing is due and payable towards them against insurance claim. OP prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                     On the other hand, ld counsel for complainant argued that Surveyor did not assess the loss to the vehicle correctly. He did not consider all the estimate and supplementary estimate. He assess the loss on very low side and ignored the actual expenses. The Surveyors are appointed by Insurance Companies and it is generally seen that  a person gives report in favour of party, who appoints him. In the present case also, the Surveyor gave report in favour of OP Insurance Company and assessed the less loss to the vehicle of complainant.

12                                  We have thoroughly gone through the file. OPs produced Survey Report submitted by Vinod Kumar and Associates/ Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Ex OP-4. From the perusal of Survey Report, it is revealed that Surveyor discussed the loss to the vehicle in detail as per estimate and assessed the loss, but it is transpired that regarding damage of some parts, he has assessed very less amount as compared to estimate amount such as M/s Nayyar Motors, Kotkapura

cc no. 277 of 2017

gave estimate for Assy Frame Complete for Rs.2,15,500/-, but the Surveyor assessed the loss only for Rs.58,000/-. Again M/s Delhi Denting and Repair Works gave estimate on labour charges for dash board and full repair and for new material and its fitting and for fitting dash  board for Rs.39,000/-but, Surveyor assessed only Rs.22,000/-for this. M/s new Monga Motor Repairing Works gave estimate for labour charges, repair and fitting for Rs.37,000/-and Surveyor assessed loss for only Rs.14,000/-. M/s Sukhjit Body Maker, Dhilwan gave estimate for labour charges, for chasis, kamanies, body paint, new sheets, pipes and dala and for bumper for Rs.1,45,000/- and Surveyor assessed the loss only for Rs.45,000/- i.e very lesser than the estimate. Moreover, Surveyor has not given any reason to assess this loss on very lower side than the estimate. Therefore, these assessments do not seem to be genuine. So, we are of considered opinion that Surveyor assessed lesser loss than the estimate and OPs paid less amount than actual loss to the vehicle. Hence, present complaint is hereby partly allowed. OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/-more to the complainant towards the loss to his vehicle alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy

cc no. 277 of 2017

of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 5.03.2019         

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal) 

Member                            President