Haryana

Karnal

CC/335/2020

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M.R. Bhardwaj

24 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 335 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.31.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:24.03.2022

 

Pawan Kumar son of Shri Rishipal, resident of village Budhanpur Khalsa, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, aged 35 years.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, SCF no.55 IIIrd floor, Sector-6, Main Market, Karnal.

 

2.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Branch Unit no.709-712 7^th floor, HUB town Viva, Shankarwadi, Western Express Highway, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra-400060.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri M.R. Sangwan, counsel for complainant.

Shri Ashok Vohra, counsel for OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his truck bearing registration no.HR58B-6936 with the OPs, vide policy bearing no.2315/59244760/00/000, valid w.e.f. 22.12.2018 to 21.12.2019. The said truck met with an accident and in this regard DDR no.13 dated 18.12.2019 has been lodged in Police Station City, Karnal. The complainant spent a sum of Rs.101600/- on the repair of the vehicle in question. The OPs appointed a surveyor, who survey the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.41898/- and the said amount transferred in the account of the complainant on 02.03.2020. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested to pay the remaining amount of Rs.59072/- but OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay the same. In this way there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OPs received the claim of the complainant and on scrutiny the claim of the complainant, the OPs have released/deposited a sum of Rs.41898/- to the bank account of complainant on 02.03.2020 on account of repair of truck bearing registration no.HR-58B-6936 as per bill provided by the complainant inspite of the repeated requests dated 10.01.2020, 17.01.2020 and 20.02.2020 made by the OPs, and the payment in question made under the provisions of terms and conditions of the policy. Now the complainant has no right, title to increase the said repair bill. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 09.12.2019 and complainant lodged the DDR on 18.12.2019 i.e. after a period of nine days in Police Station City, Karnal and there is no justification of recording the DDR by nine days. It is wrong to alleged that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.101600/- as per bills in question. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complainant have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents photo copies of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C7, photo copy of insurance policy Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 19.03.2021 on behalf of complainant by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs have tendered into evidence affidavit of Prashant Shukla Ex.OPW1/A, and documents photocopy of registration certificate Ex.P1, photocopy of RTA certificate Ex.OP2, insurance policy Ex.OP3, photocopy of letter dated 10.01.2020 Ex.OP4, photocopy of letter dated 20.02.2020 Ex.OP5, photo copy of postal receipt Ex.OP6, final survey report Ex.P7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs 16.12.2021  by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his truck with the OPs. The said vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 09.12.2019 and was badly damaged. Complainant got repaired the same and spent a sum of  Rs.101600/-. After getting the vehicle repaired, the complainant visited the office of OPs alongwith all necessary documents and bills of repair of vehicle etc. and submitted the same to the office of OPs and requested to disburse the abovesaid amount but OPs paid only a sum of Rs.41898/. Thereafter, complainant requested to the OPs several times for payment of the remaining amount but OPs refused to pay the same. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on scrutiny the claim of the complainant, the OPs have rightly released/deposited a sum of Rs.41898/- to the bank account of complainant on 02.03.2020 on account of repair of truck in question. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned counsel for OPs has relied upon the authorities titled as H.C. Saxena Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 1(2012) CPJ 420 (NC); Dabrirrudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. I(2010) CPJ 141 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal, II (2009) CPJ 45 (NC) and United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC).

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that OPs have paid Rs.41898/- to the complainant.

10.           As per version of the complainant, he spent a sum of Rs.101600/- on the repair of the vehicle in question but the OPs have paid only Rs.41898/-. To prove his version complainant has placed on record, bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. On perusal of the said bills, it reveals that the same were issued by the different agencies i.e. Rakesh Auto Agencies, New Vishavkarma Automobiles, Roshan Motor Workshop, Kala Kamani Works, Vinod Kumar body Maker, Sonu Electrician and Kapoor Painter. The said bills were not issued by any authorized dealers of the vehicle. The possibility of the said bills issued in higher side cannot be ruled out.

11.           On the other hand, as per surveyor report Ex.P7 the loss has been assessed by the surveyor of the OPs as Rs.41989/- but complainant claimed Rs.101600/-. Hence, the report of the surveyor will prevail. In H.C. Saxena’s case (supra) Hon’ble National Commission held that report of the surveyor appointed under the provisions of law is an important document, and cannot be brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. Similar view has taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Dabirrudin’s case (supra) and Deen Dayal’s case (supra). Further, in Maya’ case’s (supra) wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938.

12.           Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the OPs have rightly paid the amount of Rs.41898/- to the complainant.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we found no merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 24.03.2022

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)      

                      Member