Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/82

Ashwani Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Sharma Ghanauli, Adv.

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  82 of 23.12.2016

                                 Date of decision                    :      11.08.2017

 

Ashwani Kumar, son of Sh. Prem Dass, Resident of VPO Lodi Majra, Tehsil and District Rupnagar

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

              1. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional     Office, SCO-123-124, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2.   United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch office at  SCO No.127-128, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                        ....Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Deepak Dharmani, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Ankur Verma, Adv. counsel for O.Ps.

 

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Ashwani Kumar through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay the whole amount of Rs.45,487/- as repair charges of the vehicle

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization in the interest of justice.

 

2.             In brief the case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of Tavern vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01-7765. He got it insured with the O.Ps. for an IDV of Rs.2,74,500/- for the period from 09.06.2016 to 08.06.2017, by paying the insurance premium of Rs.20,264/-. The said vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. He accordingly, lodged a complaint with the police and also informed the O.Ps. They deputed a surveyor for inspection and also directed him to get his damaged vehicle repaired from Jaspal Auto Centre, Chandigarh. As per the directions of the O.Ps. he got repaired his vehicle from the said service centre and paid Rs.45,487/- as repair charges. He lodged the claim along with all the requisite documents with the O.Ps. But the O.Ps. instead of paying him the total repair charges of Rs.45,487/-, had paid only 16,319/-. By not paying the repair charges of Rs.45,487/-, the O.Ps. have committed deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint.

3.             On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2, have filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant lodged two claims with them and accordingly, ideal surveyor and loss assessor and Sh. Jaspreet Singh Mehta, surveyor and loss assessor were deputed to assess the loss. The said surveyors, after inspecting the vehicle have assessed the loss and submitted their reports dated 17.9.2016 and 04.10.2016. The insurance company has made the payment to the complainant, as assessed by the said surveyors. No direction was given to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from Jaspal Auto Centre, Chandigarh and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay the whole amount to the complainant incurred on the repair of the vehicle.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

4.             On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.  The learned counsel for the O.Ps has tendered into evidence reply cum affidavit of Smt. Hem Lata, Deputy Manager, Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh. Jaspreet Singh Mehta, surveyor cum loss assessor Ex.OP2, affidavit of Sh. Satbir Singh, Partner of M/s Ideal surveyor and loss assessor Ex.OP3 along with documents Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP25 and closed the evidence.  

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file including written arguments filed by the O.Ps. carefully.

6.             At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. has raised the objection that the complainant is plying the vehicle in question as a maxi cab for commercial purpose, therefore, he cannot be said to be consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed solely on this ground. From the record, it is borne out that complainant is plying the vehicle in question as a taxi for commercial use. From the copy of insurance policy, Ex.C2, it is clear that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the O.Ps. In the case of Harsholia Motors Vs National Insurance Company Limited, CPJ 27 (NC), 2006. the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that contract of insurance is contract of indemnity, therefore, question of any commercial activity does not arise. It has also been held that the insured who takes the insurance policy, does not trade or carry on insurance policy taken by it. The policy is only for indemnification of the loss suffered and is not intended to generate profit. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case mentioned above, the complainant is a consumer qua the the insurance company and the objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. is not sustainable, hence rejected.

7.                     On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has spent a sum of Rs.45,487/- for the repair, on his duly insured vehicle, which met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. Accordingly, he lodged the claim with the O.Ps. but however, they instead of paying him the total repair charges of Rs. 45,487/- had paid a meager amount of Rs.16,319/-, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. has submitted that they have already indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him, as per the loss assessed by both the surveyors, who were deputed to assess the loss under section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the said surveyors have rightly assessed the loss, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, they cannot be said to be deficient in providing services to the complainant. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. has placed reliance on the order dated 05.05.2010, passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of Pentagon Steel Pvt. Limted Vs New India Insurance Company and others, wherein it was held that survey report of the surveyor appointed by the O.P. would show that he had taken care of almost every aspect while computing the loss/damage- Do not find any fault with assessment as made by the two surveyors of the Insurance Company- Complainant has highly exaggerated the claim amount. The amount of Rs.4,98,531/- assessed loss since paid to the complainant and he was not entitled to any amount beyond what has been paid to it and dismissed the complaint.    

                        Admittedly, the vehicle in question was duly insured with the O.Ps and it met with an accident and got damaged during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant got it repaired from Jaspal Auto Centre and had paid a sum of Rs.45,487/- (Rs.25,487/- + Rs.20,000/-) as is evident from the bill dated 17.9.2016, Ex.C3, and bill dated 15.9.2016, Ex.C4. From the report dated 17.9.2016, of ideal surveyor and loss assessor, Ex.OP5 it is evident that the said surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,713/- and from the report dated 04.10.2016, Ex.OP6, it is evident that Sh. Jaspreet Singh Mehta, the surveyor and loss assessor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4609.38/-. The said surveyors and loss assessors have also furnished their affidavits. On perusal of the said reports, it is evident that these are detailed one. It may be stated that the reports of the said surveyors are valuable piece of evidence by virtue of their having been appointed under section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, and the same cannot be brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. The complainant has not produced on record any document to rebut the loss assessed by the surveyor. Since, the O.Ps. have already indemnified the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.16.319/- as assessed by the said surveyors. Therefore, the O.Ps. cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and the complaint filed against them being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

8.                     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint filed against O.Ps. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

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

 

                    ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                    Dated .11.08.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                     (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER