DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 77
Instituted on: 23.02.2017
Decided on: 23.06.2017
Kuldeep Kaur aged 48 years w/o Sh. Shamsher Singh, resident of H.No.520, Street No.4, Near Sarvhitkari School, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 72, 1st Floor, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Plot No. EL94, TTC, Industrial Area, MIDC, Mhape, Navi Mumbai-400710 through its Managing Director.
3. MAX Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur (Authorised dealer of Maruti Cars) through its authorised signatory.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.
For OP No.1&2 : Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.
For OP No.3 : Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured her ALTO K-10 car from Ops number 1 and 2 through OP number 3 for Rs.2,90,064/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.9173/- and the Ops number 1 and 2 issued policy bearing number 2311/56625418/00/000 for the period from 27.10.2016 to 26.10.2017, as such, the complainant has said that he is the consumer of the OPs by getting insured her car bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-6777. Further case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, when the car was being driven by her husband the car in question met with an accident near village Ratolan on 14.11.2016 and damaged badly. On the very next date, the intimation was given to OPs number 1 and 2 and on the instructions of the OP number 1 and 2 the car was brought to OP number 3 on 6.10.2016. The OP number 3 prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.2,64,434/- for repairing the vehicle, consequently, the vehicle was declared ‘total loss’ by the surveyor of the OP number 1 and 2 and got signed various printed proforma and assured that the payment would be released within a period of thirty days. Further case of the complainant is that on 30.12.2016 the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 21.12.2016 wherein the Ops number 1 and 2 informed that the surveyor Shri Sanjeev Verma approved the body shell for repair with child parts, therefore, they shown their inability to declare the vehicle as total loss. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter on 10.1.2017, the complainant received a letter dated 4.1.2017 wherein the Ops number 1 and 2 intimated the complainant that their liability to pay the compensation is Rs.1,56,786/- and asked to get the vehicle repaired. Lastly, the grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle was earlier declared by the Ops as ‘total loss’ and thereafter they told to get the vehicle be got repaired on repair basis. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,90,064/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops number 1 to 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint, that after receipt of the intimation, the Ops appointed Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the net liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.1,56,786/-, but the complainant was not ready to get the aforesaid vehicle repaired. It is denied that the vehicle was ever assessed as ‘total loss’. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the Ops for the period from 27.10.2016 to 26.10.2017 for Rs.2,90,064/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that the complainant submitted the estimate for repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,05,197/-. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. In reply filed by OP number 3, it is admitted that on the request of the complainant, the vehicle in question was got insured from Ops umber 1 and 2. It is admitted that the car in question was brought to the OP number 3 in accidental condition and the OP number 3 prepared the estimate and charged Rs.4500/-, which are said to be rightly charged. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/14 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-6777 from the OPs number 1 and 2 for the period from 27.10.2015 to 26.10.2016 for Rs.2,90,064/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.9173/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-1 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 14.11.2016 near village Ratolan, Tehsil Malerkotla and suffered loss as such, the complainant gave intimation to the Ops about the accident of the vehicle, as such, the OPs appointed the surveyor to assess the loss. Now, the dispute is between the parties that the complainant has sought the settlement of the claim on total loss basis, whereas the Ops number 1 and 2 are deciding the claim on actual loss basis. The complainant has relied upon the estimate dated 17.11.2016 for Rs.2,64,434/- issued by OP number 3 and according to that the vehicle in question comes under total loss as the loss value has exceeded more than 75% of the insured value. Further the complainant has produced on record the affidavit of another surveyor Shri Yashwinder Goyal, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,34,657/- and Ex.C-12 is the assessment report of Shri Yashwinder Goyal, surveyor and loss assessor, who is also approved surveyor. Though the ops have also produced a copy of letter dated 4.1.2017, whereby it has been mentioned that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,56,786/-, but, it is worth mentioning here that since the complainant has produced the report of independent surveyor and loss assessor Shri Yashwinder Goyal on record, whereas Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma has also produced his report whereby he has assessed the above said amount of Rs.1,56,786/- and Ex.OP1&2/13 is the affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Verma to support his report. But, the fact remains that the accident of the vehicle took place on 14.11.2016 and the complainant got independent survey of the car in question from Er. Yashwinder Goyal, who has also produced his affidavit ExC-11 and report Ex.C-12, whereby he has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,34,657/- meaning thereby the loss is more than 75% of the insured value and as such, the vehicle deserves to be declared as ‘total loss’ and the claim should be decided accordingly.
7. It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that why the surveyor is not in agreement with the estimate submitted by the approved repairer to declare the vehicle as ‘total loss’. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited National Insurance Company Limited versus Rama Nanda 2016(2) CLT 137 (NC), wherein it has been held that if the surveyor is not agree with the estimate of the repair etc, then he should unless go by the cost of the repair, if any, fixed by the manufacturer, obtain estimate of repairs from some other workshop and it is only the basis of such a quotation/estimate that he can reject the estimate obtained by the insured. Alternatively, he can make enquiry from some other workshop and note down the particulars of the workshop along with the charges quoted by it. In such a case, the insurer should ask the insured to get the vehicle repaired at the workshop which has provided a lower estimate of repair to the surveyor. The assessment made by the surveyor becomes totally arbitrary and cannot be accepted. The same is the position in the present case as neither the OPs number 1 and 2 nor the surveyor Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, has produced any such details as mentioned above. Further reliance can also be placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Pradeep Kumar 2010(1) CPC 387 Supreme Court, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousands rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from, it is not conclusive. Approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the report of Surveyor Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma has no weightage in the circumstances of the case. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the complainant is liable to be decided on total loss basis by the Ops number 1 and 2.
8. The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to settle the claim of the complainant on total loss basis and pay the amount accordingly along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.02.2017 till realisation. We further direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.
10. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
June 23, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
