| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 264 of 7-09-2017 Decided on : 26-04-2022 Upkar Singh S/o Surjit Singh R/o H. No. 28373-A-1, Street No. 1 D, S.A.S Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus The Branch Manager, United India Insurance co. Ltd., Building No. 2090-B, Opp. Nagpal Hospital, Mall Road, Bathinda 151 001. The Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered & Head Office, 24, Whtes Road, Chennai.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. R P Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Upkar Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he got insured his car bearing Registration No. PB-03AG-6989 under Bumper to Bumper scheme with the opposite parties Vide Policy No. 2001023116P108467460 dated 25.09.2016 for the period from from 25/09/2016 to 24.09.2017. It is alleged that in the month of march 2017, complainant got repaired his car from authorized dealer i.e. Aakriti World, Jallandhar. Since the car was damaged in accident, the complainant intimated the opposite parties regarding damage to the car and thereafter, handed over his car to the above said agency as per instruction of the company. The complainant alleged that on 31/03/2017, he informed the opposite parties that the bill of Rs. 82,365/- is to be paid to the Aakriti World, Jallandhar. The opposite parties asked the complainant to pay bill of Rs. 82,365/- and thereafter invoice amount will be credited into his account by the Company/opposite parties. On the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant paid Rs.82,365/- to the said agency but thereafter instead of reimbursement of entire payment of Rs. 82,365/-, the opposite parties paid Rs. 73,193/- in the account of the complainant on 25-05-2017. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant was entitled to total sum of Rs. 82,365/- but the opposite parties made deduction of Rs. 9,172/-. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 13/06/2017, demanding Rs. 9172/- which has been deducted from total amount. The complainant alleged that due to unethical act and deficient service of the opposite parties he has suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay/reimburse Rs. 9172/- with interest @18% and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. That the complainant has no cause of action and that this Commission has no jurisdiction, to try and entertain the complaint. That the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint and has unnecessarily harassed the opposite parties by dragging them into uncalled for litigation. That the complainant is not consumer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has already accepted the entire compensation amount to his full satisfaction against a proper receipt without any objection whatsoever. As such he is not entitled for any further amount as alleged. It has been pleaded that the actual facts of the case are that the complainant had lodged a claim with the opposite parties with regard to the own damage of insured vehicle and the opposite parties with all bonafidies had immediately appointed the surveyor to assess the loss as per rules. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 73,193/-. Not only this, the complainant vide his receipt dated 24/05/2017 has received the entire amount of Rs.73,193/- towards the settlement of the present claim which had been accepted by him in full satisfaction and in discharge of the claim under the said policy. On merits, it has been pleaded that the claim if any, was payable subject to rules and regulations, terms and conditions of the policy and as assessed by the surveyor according to the facts of the case. The copy of the terms and conditions of the policy had been supplied to the complainant at the time of issuing the insurance policy. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the said vehicle having met with an accident and the same having been got repaired from the said dealer as alleged. After receiving the intimation from the complainant, a surveyor was appointed who had inspected the vehicle at the spot and the final survey report had also been received according to which the insured was found entitled for an amount of Rs.73,193/-. It has been pleaded that the complainant of his own had handed over the vehicle to the said agency. The bill, if any, was payable subject to rules and regulations, terms and conditions and as assessed by the surveyor. The opposite parties never asked the complainant to make the payment of the said amount as alleged. The opposite parties had duly informed to the complainant when he came to their office that the amount shall be payable as assessed by the surveyor and the complainant himself had voluntarily accepted the said amount. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidvit dated 14-7-2017 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Insurance policy (Ex. C-2), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice and postal receipt (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit dated 6-3-2018 of Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of satisfaction voucher (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of final survey report (Ex. OP-1/3) and photocopy of Insurance policy (Ex. OP-1/4). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. In the case in hand, there is no dispute regarding insurance and accident of vehilcle bearing registration No. PB-03AG-6989 of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he paid Rs. 82,365/- to the repairer i.e. Aakriti World, Jallandhar, and thereafter he processed his case for reimbursement, but the the opposite parties instead of reimbursement of entire payment of Rs. 82,365/-, deposited Rs. 73,193/- in the account of the complainant. The complainant has placed on file Retail Invoice dated 31-3-2017 (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4) amounting to Rs. 82,365/-. Ex. OP-1/3 is the Motor Final Survey Report which reveals that surveyor & Asessors, Techno Experts, have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 73,194/- which admittedly, has been paid by the opposite parties to the complainant. Hon'ble National Commission in case of Narinder Kumar Joshi Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited IV 2017 CPJ 366 (NC) has observed that the insurance claim is to be settled on the basis of surveyor report unless legitimate reasons are pointed out for not accepting the surveyor report. Similarly, in case of Sri Venkatshwar Sindikat Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and Anr., II (2010) CPJ 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the surveyors were appointed under statutory provisions and they are linked between insurer and insured when question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become base for settlement of claim by the insurer in respect of loss suffered by the insured. The opposite parties have placed on file Satisfaction Voucher (Ex. OP-1/2) obained by Motor Dealer Cell, Jallandhar, duly signed by complainant which reveals that an amount of Rs. 69,700/- has been paid to the repairer Aakriti Word in connection with the repair charges of vehicle in question of complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file any evidence to prove that he paid Rs. 82,365/- to the repairer i.e. Aakriti World, Jallandhar. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence placed on file by the parties and settled law as detailed above, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in paying the claim amount to complainant as assessed by Insurance surveyor. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 26-04-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
