Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.



Complaint Case No. 94/2008

Date of Institution 3-4-2008

Date of Decision 7-3-2009



Gurmukh Singh son of Sh. Manjeet Singh resident of Mangwain, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant





V/S



National Insurance Company Ltd Divisional Office No.1 Link Road Near Atam Park Ludhiana-141003

…..Opposite party











For the complainant Sh. Desh Raj Sharma , Advocate

For the opposite party Sh. Khushal Sen , Advocate



Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.





ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a vehicle Tata -207 from the Tata Motors and the same was mortgaged with Dada Motors . The said vehicle was duly registered with Registering Authority Mandi and registration No. HP-65-0538 was allotted to it as per registration certificate Annexure C-1. The said vehicle on 13-9-2004 met with an accident . At the time of accident the vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party as per insurance cover note Annexure C-2.Accident of the vehicle in question was duly intimated to the opposite party and the opposite party visited the spot and inspected the vehicle. Thereafter, the Surveyor of the opposite party calculated the damage caused to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.60,000/- and after deduction, the opposite party assessed the amount at RS.40,000/-. The opposite party vide letter dated 9-3-2004 Annexure C-3 demanded from the complainant registration book and repair bills The bills Annexure C-5 to C-8 were sent to the opposite party vide letter dated 17-1-2006Annexure C-4. It is alleged that thereafter neither the claim was accepted nor repudiated . The complainant in compelling circumstances served the legal notice dated 31-7-2007 Annexure C-9 upon the opposite party but thereafter also no action was taken. . The complainant has alleged that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party is negligence and clear cut deficiency in service . With these averments , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.60,000/- as insurance claim to pay Rs.40,000 /- on account of damages . Apart from this, cost of litigation has also been claimed.

2 The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing reply . It had admitted that the vehicle was insured with it with effect from 3-12-2003 to 2-12-2004 and the same met with an accident on 13-9-2004, It has been admitted that the opposite party was informed by the father of the complainant vide letter dated 15-9-2004 Annexure O.P.-1. It has been denied that the damage caused to vehicle was calculated at Rs.60,000/- and after deduction assessed the same at Rs.40,000/-. The opposite party had admitted that it had deputed Surveyor on 15-9-2004 who had assessed the value of damages at Rs.13,304.25 paisa as per Annexure O.P/2. The complainant was asked by the opposite party to get the vehicle repaired and then get the inspection done by the surveyor and also to submit the bills duly signed by the company as the father of the complainant had given consent vide letter dated 7-2-2005 and agreed to the assessed amount of Rs.13,304/-. The opposite party had admitted that it had written letter dated 9-3-2004 but inadvertently written the year as 2004 whereas it should have been 2005 demanding the registration book / permit / log book and repair bills/ cash memos so that the payment could be done . The complainant was requested to submit the documents alongwith the bills so that the amount agreed be paid to the complainant but he had not paid any heed to the request of the opposite party even after issuance of different reminders and intimations to this effect and as such claim was closed as” No claim” vide Annexure O.P.5. Rest of the allegations have been denied The opposite party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint .

3. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting the averments made in the reply by the opposite parties.

4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record. From the perusal of the complaint , reply and accompanying documents , it is apparent that the claim of the complainant had been closed by the opposite party as No Claim. Now it has to be seen by this Forum as to whether the opposite party was justified in closing the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” with respect to the damage caused to the vehicle or not. In order to decide the point under controversy, we have to go through the record . The perusal of letter dated 28-3-2005 Annexure O.P/5 adduced in evidence by the opposite party itself depicts that the opposite party has issued reminder to the complainant but he has not complied with the required documents and the claim was closed as No claim. If we advert to the letter dated 9-3-2004 issued by the opposite party and adduced by it in evidence as Annexure O.P/4 it depicts that Registration book and repair bills / cash memos were required to be submitted by the complainant . The complainant in para No.5 of the complaint has very specifically pleaded that Registration book and repair bills were sent to the opposite party vide letter dated 17-1-2006 and he has also placed on record the copy of the same as Annexure C-4 . It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party had closed the claim as No claim on 28-3-2005 whereas the complainant has complied with the requirement on 17-1-2006. The complainant has also placed on record the copies of the bills Annexure C-5 to C-8 which also shows that the vehicle has been repaired . Copy of legal notice has also been adduced in evidence as Annexure C-9 . Apart from this copy of registration certificate has also been filed by the complainant. The documentary evidence adduced by the complainant shows that no doubt he had submitted all the documents to the opposite party but after the closing of the claim However, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that since the documents as required by the opposite party have now been submitted by the complainant and have also been filed alongwith the present complaint , the claim of the complainant should be allowed especially when the vehicle in question was duly insured with the opposite party at the time of accident and the same got damaged.

7 Now the next question which arises for consideration before this Forum is as to what amount the complainant is entitled on account of loss suffered by him due to the accident of the vehicle .The complainant in his complaint had clamed Rs. 60,000 /- as repair charges and has also placed on record photocopies of the repair bills Annexure C-5 to C-8 but these documents are only photocopies and even the affidavit of the Workshop owner / repairer has also not been adduced in evidence and as such these documents cannot be relied in evidence .On the other hand the opposite party has admitted in his reply that net loss sustained by the complainant is Rs.13,304.25 paise The opposite party has also adduced in evidence copy of the report of Surveyor Annexure O.P/2 which corroborates the version of the opposite party that the loss sustained by the complainant on account of accident of the vehicle in question is to the tune of Rs.13,304/- The complainant has failed to file any satisfactory evidence on record to show that the surveyor report is incorrect. In our opinion the report of Surveyor is an important document and it cannot be brushed aside without sufficient reasons. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in United India Insurance company vs Jadhav Kirana Store , III (2005)CPJ-79(NC) has held that the Surveyor report is an important document and it should not be shunned without sufficient reasons. Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence to the contrary , we accept the report of Surveyor and in view of the same , we hold that the loss suffered by the complainant with respect to the damage caused to the vehicle is Rs.13,304/-.

8 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties is directed to pay Rs.13,304/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Since the complainant had complied with the requisite formalities after closing the claim as “ No Claim, hence he is not entitled to be indemnified on account of compensation and costs of litigation

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced (Sushil Kukreja) President

7-3-2009