Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/151

Karminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Pardeep Sahai, Adv

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 151 of 02.12.2014

                                 Date of decision               : 12.06.2015

 

Karminder Singh, son of  Sh. Manjit Singh,  resident of  House No.2089, Ali Mohalla, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

                                             Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited. Rupnagar through its Branch Manager, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

                                                                           ......Opposite Party

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Pardeep Sahai Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh. Amit Gupta Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party

 

 

ORDER

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Karminder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay Rs.37,000/- towards balance claim amount,

ii)      To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment,

iii)     To pay Rs.12,000/- as cost of the complaint,

iv)     To pay interest on the above said amounts @ 18% P.A. till its realization.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of vehicle No. CH-03-U-0892, which was insured with the O.P. for the period from 05.10.2013 to 04.10.2014. The said vehicle met with an accident and got totally damaged, regarding which intimation was duly given to the O.P. As per instructions of the O.P., he got the vehicle repaired by spending more than Rs.90,000/- and submitted bills to the O.P. for the settlement of the claim, but the O.P. has, wrongly & illegally,  made the payment of Rs.53,000/- only, out of the said amount of Rs.90,000/- and has not paid the remaining amount of Rs.37,000/-, inspite of his repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on its part, due to which he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

 3.               On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written statement taking preliminary objections; that the claim regarding which the complaint has been filed by the complainant is beyond the purview of the terms & conditions of the policy, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed; that the complaint is false, frivolous & vexatious; that the complainant had accepted the payment of Rs.53,000/- without any objection and thereafter, never contacted the O.P. for any grievance and has come to the court directly, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has obtained insurance policy No. 1121013113P104292399 in respect of vehicle No.CH-O3U-0892 for the period from 05.10.2013 to 04.10.2014 from the O.P., strictly subject to the terms & conditions thereof and that during the currency of the said policy, the complainant had intimated one loss to the insured vehicle on 23.07.2014, near village Takkipur. It is stated that the competent authority of the insurance company had deputed M/s Ideal Surveyor and Loss Assessor for conducting the spot survey and Sh. Rajnish Gupta, for conducting final Survey. Both the above said surveyors are registered with the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority and are fully authorized by it to assess the loss for damaged vehicle; that the spot surveyor had submitted his report on 25.07.2014 and the final surveyor, Sh. Rajnish Gupta, had surveyed the vehicle and after discussion with the repairer, had finalized the assessment of loss and submitted his final survey report dated 15.09.2014 to the insurance company. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the O.P. was liable to pay the loss of the vehicle after deducting depreciation (as per age of the vehicle), excess clause, salvage value of damaged parts and the repair/extra work done at the instructions of the complainant by the repairer, which was not the subject matter/related with the accident of the vehicle. The surveyor had made the assessment for the damaged parts to the tune of Rs.36,216/-, labour Rs.25,022, recondition parts Rs.9700/- & Rs.1000/- towards towing charges. After deducting the depreciation amount to the tune of Rs.15190/-, Rs.1000/-  under excess clause and Rs.1927/- towards salvage value of damaged parts, the competent authority had approved the claim for a sum of Rs.53000/-, which was paid to the complainant, who had accepted the same, without any objection. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with cost.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1/A, affidavit of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Ex. C2/A,  photocopies  of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Ms. Himali Batra, Deputy Manager, as Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the vehicle in question, which was duly insured with the O.P., met with an accident, regarding which he informed the O.P. On the asking of the O.P., he got it repaired by spending a sum of Rs.90,000/-, same is evident from the copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C12. He lodged claim with the O.P. and submitted all the requisite documents for settlement of the claim. However, the O.P. instead of paying the said amount of Rs.90,000/- has paid only a sum of Rs.53,000/- and still an amount of Rs.37,000/- is to be paid by it, therefore, it be directed to pay the said amount alongwith interest and it be also direct to pay compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by him alongwith litigation costs, as prayed for, in the complaint.

 

7.                In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that after the receipt of the intimation regarding the accident of the car in question. The competent authority deputed a surveyor for sport survey and also for final survey. The claim amount has been assessed on the basis of the spot surveyor report dated 25.07.2014 Ex.OP-4 submitted by the spot surveyor and on the basis of the final survey report dated 15.09.2014, Ex.OP-5, and after discussing the matter with the repairer. The O.P. as per terms and conditions of the policy, after deducting the depreciation, excess clause, salvage value of the damaged parts had rightly paid a sum of Rs.53,000/- to the complainant. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is meritless and the same be dismissed with costs.

 

8.                In the Final Surveyor Report dated 15.09.2014, Ex.OP-5, the surveyor has categorically depicted the claimed amount and the assessed amount, in respect of each & every damaged parts and has assessed the cost of the parts for a sum of Rs.22,356.39 and that of labour to the tune of Rs.22,972.56 and after adding Rs.1000/- as towing charge & Rs.9700/- towards reconditioned parts has calculated the net loss at Rs.54,870.95, after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- on account of excess clause and Rs.158/- on account of salvage value. Under the heading ‘Recommendations’ he has also categorically mentioned that a net loss of Rs.54,870.95 is recommended and that the cost of the parts allowed was as per prevailing market price and labour as per impact of accident. The surveyor has, thus, assessed the loss after considering all the aspects of the case. Even the complainant has not raised any objection to the report of the said surveyor. It is pertinent to mention here that for settlement of the insurance claims, surveyor’s report is an important document and the same cannot be brushed aside lightly, without any compelling evidence to the contrary. In the case titled as ‘New India Assurance Company Ltd. versus Suresh Kumar’ 2010 (2) CLT (NC) 628, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that that the detailed report of surveyor cannot be ignored, unless it is discredited by producing evidence to the contrary, because it has considerable evidential value. In ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Sehrawat India (P) Ltd. & Anr.’,  2009 (4) CLT (NC) 433, the Hon’ble National Commission has also held that report of statutory surveyor has to be given due importance in arriving at the conclusion about the net loss suffered by the consumer unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, admittedly, an amount of Rs.53000/- has already been paid by the O.P. to the complainant, whereas as per surveyor’s report he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.54,870.95. In this way, an amount of Rs.1,870.95 (Rs.1900/-) has been paid lesser than the amount as assessed by the surveyor. Accordingly, we hold that the O.P. is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.1900/- to the complainant alongwith interest. The O.P. is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony & harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses incurred by him for filing of the instant complaint.

 

9.                In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the O.P. is directed in the following manner:-

          i)       To pay a sum of Rs.1900/-) to the complainant alongwith

                      interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint

                     i.e. 02.12.2014 till realization,

 

ii)      To pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as compensation & litigation  

           expenses.

 

          The O.P. is further directed to comply with the above directions within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 12.06.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                              (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.