DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 608
Instituted on: 12.10.2016
Decided on: 14.03.2017
Harpreet Singh son of Bikker Singh son of Hakam Singh, R/O Village Chhahar, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Above Aggarwal Auto, Dirba, Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite party.
For the complainant : Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.
For Opp. party : Shri Bhushn Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Harpreet 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 truck bearing registration number PB-12-J-7195 from the OP for Rs.8,00,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.37,107/- for the period from 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016 under the said policy. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 21.04.2016 at 2.00 AM near Gharachon Grid, when Gurpreet Singh was driving the vehicle in question. It is further averred that the said vehicle was loaded with bricks and when it came into the Kachha portion of the road and turned turtle due to the loaded bricks. It is further averred that when driver Gurpreet Singh was coming out of the truck and he struck with the electric wire and died on the spot and the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident, of which DDR was also recorded in the PS Sadar, Sangrur and the post-mortem on the dead body of the vehicle was also conducted. The intimation of this accident was also given to the OP and the Op deputed Shri Sanjiv Kumar, surveyor for spot survey. It is further averred that as per the estimate of Bansal Autos, the vehicle suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.7,10,076/- and it falls in the category of total loss. The complainant also submitted all the original bills to the surveyor for Rs.6,43,180/- on the repair of the vehicle. It is further averred that the final inspection of the vehicle was conducted by Shri Rajesh Malik, surveyor of the OP and it was assured that the full payment will be made to the complainant, but the Op paid only an amount of Rs.1,08,700/- through RTGS in account of the complainant without any reason, whereas the complainant was entitled to the tune of Rs.6,43,180/- and an amount of Rs.5,34,480/- is still due towards the insurance company. 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 amount of Rs.5,34,480/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, that the complainant has filed the false, baseless complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the present complaint has been filed to over reach the law and contract of insurance. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OP under the policy as stated above. It is stated that on receiving the intimation, the OP deputed Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma for spot survey, who after spot verification prepared the estimate and submitted his report dated 9.5.2016 along with other documents and photographs of the vehicle. However, it has been denied that the vehicle was shifted to Bansal Autos, Patran at the advice of the surveyor, whereas the complainant himself shifted the vehicle. It has been denied that the vehicle suffered a loss of Rs.7,10,746/- as per the estimate and further it has been denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.6,43,180/- on the repair of the vehicle. It has been stated that the claim was finally settled at Rs.1,08,700/-. It has been stated that the OP appointed independent and IRDA approved surveyor, Matrix Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors P Limited, Panchkula, who has assessed the claim and submitted his report dated 4.7.2016 to the OP after deducting depreciation to the extent of 40% on metal parts and 50% on rubber parts. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-2 copy of DDR, Ex.C-3 copy of letter, Ex.C-4 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-5 copy of passbook of Harpreet Singh, Ex.C-6 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-7 copy of passbook, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-11 copies of bills, Ex.C-12 affidavit of Harpreet Singh and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit of Satish Garg, Ex.OP/2 affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Ex.OP-3 affidavit of Ajesh Kumar, Ex.OP-4 affidavit of Gopal Krishan, Ex.OP-5 survey report, Ex.OP-6 re-inspection report, Ex.OP-7 motor survey report, Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-29 photographs, Ex.OP-30 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-31 copy of estimate dated 23.4.2016 and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question for Rs.8,00,000/- with the OP by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-1.
6. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 21.04.2016, intimation of which was given to the OP, as such after receipt of the intimation, the OP immediately appointed surveyor to asses the loss, who submitted his report. Thereafter, the OP appointed Matrix Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to assess the final survey, who submitted his report dated 4.7.2016 Ex.OP/5, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,43,660/- and after excess clause, depreciation and salvage value the claim was payable to the tune of Rs.1,22,496/-, but the OP paid an amount of Rs.1,08,700/- through RTGS on 10.08.2016. On the other hand, the complainant has claimed a total amount of Rs.6,43,180/-, out of which the Op has already paid an amount of Rs.1,08,700/- and now claims an amount of 5,34,480/- on the basis of the bills produced on record Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, but a bare perusal of it shows that all the bills are undated meaning thereby the date column is lying blank and only the vehicle number has been mentioned. We may further mention that these bills seem not to be genuine one, nor, the same have been issued by any authorised agent of the manufacturer of the vehicle. As such, we feel that these bills have no value in the eye of law.
7. We have perused the whole case file thoroughly and failed to find out any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to establish that the vehicle of the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.6,43,180/- as claimed by the complainant. However, we fee that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,43,660/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex.OP/5. We may mention that out of the above said amount of Rs.1,43,660/-, the OP has already paid an amount of Rs.1,08,700/- meaning thereby the OP is liable to pay to the complainant more an amount of Rs.34,960/-.
8. The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.34,960/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.10.2016 till realisation. We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.
10. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 14, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
