Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/463/2017

SURAJ TRADING CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN GUPTA

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No               334/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution       06-01-2015

 Date of Decision          08-03-2018

 

M/S Suraj Trading Co.

Through its Prop.Raj Kumar Goyal,

5/6 Jagdish Chander Goyal,

R/O Plot No.115 Phase-3,

Industrial Area Gangyal,

Tehsil & Distt.Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

              V/S

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Through its Division Manager,

Division Office,Ist Floor,

21-C/B Block,Opp.Convent School,

Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Opposite party

 

CORAM

                 Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                     Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member                                         

       

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

Mr.Sachin Gupta,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Naresh Kumar,Advocate for OP,present.  

                                                     

                                                          ORDER

                     Allegation of complainant as disclosed in the complaint is that he being registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.JK02AT-5964,got same insured with OP vide policy No.1106003112P146299289 ,w.e.f.21-08-2012 to 20-08-2013 (Annexure-A&B).Complainant alleges that insured vehicle met with accident on,19-01-2013, at Gowshala Road,Ganga Nagar and due to the accident the insured vehicle was badly damaged and was not able to start or move further .According to complainant, no FIR pertaining to accident was registered as no third party damage was done, but immediately after accident, information was supplied to OP ,who deputed surveyor and submitted report  to OP and then he was directed to complete requisite formalities for settlement of claim and all the requisite formalities were completed by the complainant. Allegation of complainant is that despite valid insurance, he was charged for  inspection of the car by the surveyor appointed by the OP,copy of payment receipt given by the surveyor is annexed as Annexure-C.It is also case set up by complainant that the OP was under legal and moral obligation to settle his claim in respect of loss of his vehicle, but OP refused to settle the claim and complainant was left with no other option to get his vehicle repaired on his own and incurred sum of Rs.2,02,946/-(Annexure-D).Complainant further submitted that the Op despite of lapse of almost two years has not settled the claim without any reason and this act of OP constitutes deficiency in service ,resultantly, complainant approached this Forum with the prayer for indemnity to the tune of Rs.2,02,946/-alongwith interest and in addition, also prays for sum of Rs.1.10 lacs .

                          On the other hand,OP filed written version and while admitting the insurance of vehicle in question and accident during currency of insurance policy went on to submit that complainant did not lodge any claim with respect to alleged loss to his insured vehicle with the OP till date of filing of the present complaint and accordingly it did not depute any surveyor and no report of the surveyor was submitted with it,therefore,allegation of complainant in the present complaint against the OP is categorically denied.

                          Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record copy of certificate of registration, copy of package policy, copies of Credit Invoice, copy of receipt of Rs.900/-issued by Er.Manish Phutela Surveyor and Loss Assessor and copy of surveyor report.

              On the other hand OP adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavits of M.LVerma Divisional Manager of OP.

                         We have perused case file and heard L/C appearing for the parties at length.

                              After hearing L/Cs for parties and perusing the case file, the point for consideration is, as to whether or not OP is deficient in service in not settling the case of the complainant.

                       Before heading further, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings,therefore,we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

              L/C for complainant vehemently argued that despite completion of all requisite formalities,OP did not indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant, therefore, same constitutes deficiency in service. On the other hand, submission of L/C for OP is that the complainant did not lodge any claim with respect to alleged loss to his insured vehicle with the OP till date of filing of this complaint and accordingly it did not depute any surveyor and no report of the surveyor was submitted with it.            

                Be it noted that in so far as insurance of vehicle in question and its loss during currency of policy is concerned, same are not in dispute. According to complainant, insured vehicle suffered loss. In order to support his contention that loss to the insured vehicle is suffered, complainant relied upon estimation details.

            Once it has been shown that vehicle was comprehensively insured and it was damaged during currency of Insurance Policy, in that event, OP is not expected to devoid the benefits of Insurance Policy to the insured on technical grounds, which are short of fundamental breach of contract of indemnity.

                 Otherwise also legally speaking it is settled law that the parties are always bound and governed by the terms and conditions of contract and whenever contract is entered into there is proposal made by one party in its unequivocal and unambiguous terms conveyed to the otherside and acted by otherside with the same response and in its understanding and knowledge leaving no scope of any future suspicion and incredibility in mind to come in the way of the said contract afterwards.

                               Admittedly, as per surveyor report dated 18-03-2013, which is on record, loss was assessed on Net recommended amount by applying less excess clause to the tune of Rs.2000/-and net liability assessed to the tune of Rs.1,13,652/-,therefore, we hold that complainant is entitled to indemnity to the extent assessed by the surveyor ,which under the contract of insurance,OP was required to reimburse to complainant.

                  It is needful to recall the judgment of Honble Supreme Court passed Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.V/S M/S Ozma Shipping Co.and Anr.2010 AIR SCW 514

Before parting with this case we would like to observe that the insurance companies in genuine and bona fide claims of the insured should not adopt the attitude of avoiding payments on one pretext or the other. This attitude puts a serious question mark on their credibility and trustworthiness of the insurance companies. Incidentally by adopting honest approach and attitude the insurance companies would be able to save enormous litigation costs and the interest liability.

                       Although complainant prays for sum of Rs.2,02,946/-as expenses incurred on repair of vehicle, but perusal of surveyor report reveals that insured is entitled to Net recommended amount of Rs.1,13,652/-and same has not been disputed by the complainant, hence loss assessed by the surveyor is only available reasonable basis and documentary, evidence for the loss suffered by the complainant.

                          Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and OP is directed to pay to the complainant Net Recommended amount of Rs.1,13,652/-alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f.18-05-2013(i.e.two months after surveyor report),till its realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-.The OP shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. On deposit of the amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

 08-03-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member        

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member