Kuljeet Kaur complainant through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to pay the remaining amount of damages/loss to the tune of Rs.26,409/- along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of accrual till its realization. She has also claimed Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and harassment including Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she has purchased Car for her private use make “Mahindra/Mahindra XUV 500 W8” bearing Engine No. 23482, Chassis No.89466 year of manufacturing 2012 Type of Body Saloon, Seating Capacity 7 including Driver bearing registered No.PB-06-V-7878. Complainant has stated that she got the above said vehicle insured with the opposite parties after completing all the required formalities vide Bumper to Bumper Package Policy No. 1122003112P000953261. The period of above said policy was from 16.11.2012 to Mid Night of 15.11.2013. Complainant has stated that unfortunately her car met with an accident on 13.10.2013 at 2 P.M. Near the Area of Village, Chawa, Near Pul Tibri on Gurdaspur Mukerian Road, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Complainant has further stated that matter was reported to the opposite parties and their Surveyor namely Inderbir Singh conducted the survey on 15.10.2013 at Krishna Auto World Private Company Village, Babri and submitted his report dated 25.11.2013 to the opposite parties but the actual amount of loss caused to the vehicle of complainant comes to Rs.92,090/- which she is entitled for the same. Complainant has also stated that opposite parties transferred the amount to the tune of Rs.65,681/- in his Bank Account No.55132682825 with the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Narot Jaimal Singh instead of Rs.92,090/-. Complainant has stated that if any report alleged by the surveyor regarding assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.65,681/- the same is illegal, null & void as the same is less than the actual damages i.e. Rs.92,090/- and also against the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant has next stated that she approached the opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of balance/remaining amount i.e. Rs.26,409/- for which she is legally entitled as per actual loss and as per the terms of the policy but the opposite parties putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and finally refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Complainant has stated that opposite parties illegally withheld the above said amount and it is deficiency of service on their part. Complainant has stated that she served the legal notice to the opposite parties through her counsel but the opposite parties after receiving the notice replied that they had already been paid the amount of damages, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable as the entire amount of compensation of loss has been paid to the complainant. It was stated that due to mistake surveyor deducted the depreciation in his report as per normal package which was later on corrected by him and an amount of Rs.7003/- could not be paid earlier which was paid on appearing in the honorable forum vide Cheque no.007584 dated 9.2.2015 in favour of the complainant and as such nothing was to be paid to the complainant as per surveyor report. On merit, it is submitted that Inderbir Singh Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.65,681/- by deducting depreciation as per normal package which later on corrected by him and amount of Rs.7003/- being difference was also paid to the complainant and amount of Rs.65,681/- was already credited in his account and as such remaining amount of Rs.7003/- has been paid through above stated cheque and now there remains nothing to be paid to the complainant. It is denied that the loss was of Rs.92,090/- as alleged in this para. It was stated that the reply of para no.4 has already been given in para 3 of the reply. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
- Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Pardeep Singh Branch Manager has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the impugned claim has been less paid simply on the strength of the Surveyor’s Report Ex.OP6 & OP7 and was ‘enhanced’ by Rs.7,000/- or so with the upward revision of the same by the same Surveyor and that shows that the OP insurers have not applied their own judicious mind while paying the impugned claim in the light of the complainant’s estimate Ex.C4 & C5 for Rs.92,000/- plus (and at the face of the ‘Bumper to Bumper’ insurance with having received Rs.2968.72 as Nil Depreciation Premium) duly prepared by the recognized & approved workshop for this make/ category of vehicles. What reliance could be placed on such Surveyor Report that is open to ‘variation of convenience’ at will? Surveyor Reports need to be the ‘models’ of perfection forged in professional-shops and not the ‘ill-sewn’ suits at the mercy of re-stitch in the tailors Try-Room. Somehow, we are not inclined to accept the logic as put forth by the OP insurers and conclude that the complainant’s consumer rights as envisaged under the Act have indeed been bruised and deserve redressal as per the extant provisions of the same. Further, we find the OP insurers’ handling of the impugned claim to be an evidence of unfair trade practice and that holds them liable to an adverse award under the Act.
8. In the light of the all above, we partly accept the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay the remaining impugned ‘insurance claim’ pertaining to related Policy in question with full accrued benefits etc if any, along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the undue harassment inflicted besides Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders, otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9 % PA from the date of orders till actually paid.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 21, 2015 Member.
*YP*
