Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 12 of 2017
Date of Institution : 07.03.2017
Date of Decision : 23.10.2019
Harjinder Singh son of Dayal Singh, resident of village Dhunda, Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran.
...Complainant
Versus
- United India Insurance Com. Ltd. through its Head Manager, Smt. Sneb Bhagat, 283 East Mohan Nagar Amritsar, 143001 Punjab,
- United India Insurance Com. Ltd. through its Head Manager, Regd. & Head Office, 24, Wites Road Chennai, 600014.
- Sahil Arora Insurance Consultant, 6-A Burj, Akali Baba Puhla Singh, MKT, Ghee Mandi, Amritsar.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member
For Complainant Sh. Abhinav Sharma Advocate
For Opposite Parties Sh. R.R. Arora Advocate
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Harjinder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant has taken insurance cover from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 having policy No.2002043114P109910323 valid from 12.02.2015 up-till midnight of 11.02.2016 with regard to vehicle Truck bearing registration No.HR-46C-3645 having Chassis No.AAJ04673 Engine No.01J62930351 Model 2010 type of Body Open. The policy was offered by opposite party No.2 to the complainant at village Dhunda District Tarn Taran and OP No.3 came to the Village and explained the details of the policy at Tarn Taran and it was accepted by the complainant at Tarn Taran and premium was also paid to OP No.3 at Tarn Taran. On 23.8.2015, after unloading of goods at Atari Border while returning to Tarn Taran through Jhabal, when the complainant was 2 Kilometer behind from the Jhabal Chowk while coming from Amritsar side, suddenly some cows came in front of the truck of the complainant and in order to save them the truck of the complainant overturned and was badly damaged. Thereafter, the complainant intimated about the accident to opposite parties No.3 who sent one Akash Sharma alleged to be surveyor of the company who took Rs. 1,500/- as charges from the complainant. The Opposite party No.3 promised and assured the complainant that at the time of any need or unexpected incident he will be available and will help to avail the benefit of the policy at the time of need. Said surveyor namely Akash Sharma came at the spot where the accident took place and clicked the photographs of the damaged vehicle and assured the complainant that the opposite parties No.3 will intimate with regard to sanctioning of the amount by the insurance company as assessed by the surveyor. Thereafter, the complainant regularly approached personally as well as telephonically and even visited so many times in the office of opposite party No.1 but till date, the opposite parties have not paid any claim which was assessed by the surveyor. Rather the opposite parties caused lot of harassment, mental torture to the complainant even the complainant was having a valid insurance. The employees and agents of opposite parties have been fooling the complainant by giving false assurance that he will get the insurance claim as soon as possible but at present about 10 months have been passed the complainant is helpless as he has got nothing from his company till date. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from different machines. The complainant has paid Rs. 3,58,000/- i.e. cost of repair of the vehicle which the complainant paid through various bills for repair, purchasing new parts and services charges, as the bills with regard to the repairmen as well as the parts purchased by the complainant for making the vehicle in running shape are with the complainant. The complainant has spent Rs.3,58,000/- by obtaining loan from market at the higher rate of interest. The complainant was having a valid Insurance policy, valid certificate of registration of his vehicle, valid driving license, fitness certificate and route permit on the day of accident. All the requirements as per the policy were fulfilled but inspite of that all the opposite parties No.1 to 3 intentionally, harassed, tortured the complainant by not moving forward the file of the complainant for getting the claim from the insurance company with regard to amount spent by the complainant on his damaged vehicle which was insured with his company. The complainant also approached the Opposite Parties No.1 many a times but they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and told the complainant that the opposite party No.3 will look into his matter and will get the assessment of the damaged/loss of the vehicle from competent person and will process his file but till this date nothing has happened and opposite parties No.1 & 3 in-connivance with each other have caused harassment to the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to return the damaged vehicle of Rs.3,58,000/- and compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant for the harassment, inconveniences, mental torture, inefficiency, defect in service and act of fraud caused by the opposite parties. Besides this, the opposite parties also prayed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in this from. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as he has concealed material facts from this Forum. The complainant has already lodged its claim to the opposite parties who deputed Bhupinder Pal Singh & Associate an independent surveyor and Loss Assessor who after taking in to consideration the terms and conditions of the policy, which includes the value of the commercial vehicle and its age, depreciation applicable well as damages occurred due to the accident only. As per the final Survey report of the surveyor Rs. 1,05,676 + Towing Charges Rs. 2,500/- i.e. total Rs.1,08,176/- and after deducting the less excess clause Rs. 2,000 + salvage of Rs. 5,676/- which comes to net Rs. 1,00,500/- to the complainant on 13.7.2016 and this payment is duly accepted by the complainant and all these material facts were not intentionally disclosed by the complainant in this complaint, as the complainant has flatly refused to accept that and has not received any payment. The proper survey and loss was assessed by the surveyor. The complainant has intentionally did not disclose the same, as such on this score alone the complaint of the complainant be rejected with heavy costs. The alleged loss of truck No. HR-46C-3645 of complainant an estimate loss submitted was Rs. 3,93,090/- but the complainant demanded Rs. 3,58,000/- as claimed by the complainant vide the present complaint is without any base and documentary evidence. As per the claim submitted by the complainant with the opposite party, surveyor was deputed by the company who visited the spot as well as assessed loss of Rs. 1,00,500/- which was spent by the complainant and now the complainant in order to mislead this Forum and grab money has concocted the above said story vide the present complaint. The complaint be dismissed with heavy costs. On merits, the opposite parties have denied all allegations of the complaint and reiterated the stand as taken in the preliminary objections of written version and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3 In order to prove his case, the complainant as tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-17. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Dilbag Singh Ex. OPs/A alongwith documents Ex. OPs/1 to Ex. OPs/8 and closed the evidence.
4 We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.
5 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that he has taken insurance cover from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 having policy No.2002043114P109910323 valid from 12.02.2015 up-till midnight of 11.02.2016 with regard to vehicle Truck bearing registration No.HR-46C-3645 having Chassis No.AAJ04673 Engine No.01J62930351 Model 2010 type of Body Open and the insurance policy is Ex. C-17. He further contended that on 23.8.2015 two Kilometer behind from the Jhabal Chowk while coming from Amritsar side, suddenly some cows came in front of the truck of the complainant and in order to save them the truck of the complainant overturned and was badly damaged. Thereafter, the complainant intimated about the accident to opposite parties No.3 who sent one Akash Sharma alleged to be surveyor of the company who took Rs. 1,500/- as charges from the complainant. The opposite parties No.3 gave the assurance even at the time when on his advice the complainant obtained the insurance policy through him. The Opposite party No.3 promised and assured the complainant that at the time of any need or unexpected incident he will be available and will help to avail the benefit of the policy at the time of need. He further contended that the said surveyor namely Akash Sharma came at the spot where the accident took place and clicked the photographs of the damaged vehicle and assured the complainant that the opposite parties No.3 will intimate with regard to sanctioning of the amount by the insurance company as assessed by the surveyor. Thereafter, the complainant regularly approached personally as well as telephonically and even visited so many times in the office of opposite party No.1 but till date, the opposite parties have not paid any claim which was assessed by the surveyor. He further contended that the complainant got repaired his vehicle from different machines. The complainant has paid Rs. 3,58,000/- i.e. cost of repair of the vehicle which the complainant paid through various bills for repair, purchasing new parts and services charges, as the bills with regard to the repairmen as well as the parts purchased by the complainant for making the vehicle in running shape are with the complainant. The complainant has placed on record bill Ex. C-3 of Harjeet Singh VPO Meshampur Kalan, District Amritsar, Estimate of Bittu Body Maker Ex. C-9, Estimate Gurlal Motor Makhu road Zira (Ferozepur) Ex. C-10, Bill of Chandi Auto Electric works Ex. C-11, Bill of Happy Show Maker Ex. C-12, Bill of M.K. Motor Parts Ex. C-13, C-14. The complainant has also placed on record fitness certificate of vehicle Ex. C-7 which shows that the vehicle was fit and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant has already lodged the claim to the opposite parties who deputed Bhupinder Pal Singh & Associate an independent surveyor and Loss Assessor who after taking in to consideration the terms and conditions of the policy assessed the loss of the vehicle in question. He further contended that as per the final Survey report of the surveyor Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 Rs. 1,05,676 + Towing Charges Rs. 2,500/- i.e. total Rs.1,08,176/- and after deducting the less excess clause Rs. 2,000 + salvage of Rs. 5,676/- which comes to net Rs. 1,00,500/- to the complainant on 13.7.2016. He further contended that this payment is duly accepted by the complainant and all these material facts were not intentionally disclosed by the complainant in this complaint, as the complainant has flatly refused to accept that and has not received any payment. The proper survey and report was assessed by the surveyor. The complainant has intentionally did not disclose the same, as such on this score alone, the complaint of the complainant be rejected with heavy costs. He further contended that the alleged loss of truck No. HR-46C-3645 of complainant an estimate loss submitted was Rs. 3,93,090/- but the complainant demanded Rs. 3,58,000/- as claimed by the complainant vide the present complaint is without any base and documentary evidence. He further contended that as per the claim submitted by the complainant with the opposite party, surveyor was deputed by the company who visited the spot as well as assessed loss of Rs. 1,00,500/- which was spent by the complainant and Ld. counsel for the opposite parties prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.
6 In the present case insurance is not disputed, accident is also not disputed. In the present case, the complainant is claiming Rs. 3,58,000/- from the opposite parties No. 1, 2 on account of damaged vehicle and on the other hands, the opposite parties No. 1, 2 have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 100,500/-. The insurance of the vehicle is valid w.e.f. 12.2.2015 to 11.2.2016 and the accident of the vehicle in question took place on 23.8.2015 i.e. during the period of policy Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8. Further the insurance policy Ex. OPs 1 to3/7 shows the Insured declared Value of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- . The surveyor i.e. Bhupinder Pal Singh & Associate Surveyor assessed the claim to the tune of Rs. 1,05,676/- vide Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 which has already been paid to the complainant. However, report of surveyor is totally based on the bills which were supplied by the complainant. Without deducting any amount i.e. Salvage etc. total amount of bills has been has been calculated by the surveyor as Rs. 3,93,090/- vide Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8. In Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 the surveyor has not cleared that on which basis amount of bills has been deducted. The whole of the case of the opposite parties revolves around the survey report Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8. But to prove the report of surveyor Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8, the opposite parties have not placed on record the affidavit of surveyor. In the absence of which no evidentiary value can be made on the report submitted by the surveyor. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Manikant Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 1(2012) CPJ 88 (NC) of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it has been held that the surveyor did not appear in court and subject himself to cross examination nor was any affidavit filed by him to prove his report . Producing a document in court does not by itself constitute proving the document. It has to be backed by credible evidence. In the instant case, no evidence was led to prove the surveyor’s report in the absence of which the surveyor’s report has little evidentiary value. Moreover, it is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pastures to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This, take it or leave it‟, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
7 During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the complainant has admitted that the complainant has received an amount of Rs. 1,00,500/- from the opposite parties out of claim in question. Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 is showing the amount of bills as Rs. 3,93,090/- but the complainant in the present case has claimed the amount of Rs. 3,58,000/- only. As such the entitlement of the complainant in the present case is to the extent of Rs. 3,58,000/- only.
8 In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to make the payment of Rs. 257500 /- (Rs. Two Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand and five Hundred only) (Rs. 358000-100500=Rs.257500) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant has also been harassed by the opposite parties, as such the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 7,500/- ( Rs. Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of accident till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated 23.10.2019 (Charanjit Singh)
President
(Jaswinder Kaur)
Member
