Haryana

Karnal

CC/148/2020

Lokesh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Parshant Pahwa

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 148 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.09.03.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:02.03.2023

 

Lokesh Singh son of Shri Nirmal Singh, resident of village Mainmati Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     New India Insurance Company Ltd. having its branch office,

Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Vokkswagen Karnal, PSB Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. 117/8, K.M. Stone, G.T.Road, Karnal through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Parshant Pahwa, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Manjul Mishra counsel for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Amit Rana, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment 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 Volkswagen Car bearing registration no.HR-05AJ-4066 with the OP no.1, vide insurance policy no.35360131190100009973, which is valid from 07.12.2019 to 06.12.2020, the IDV value of said vehicle was assessed at Rs.2,64,450/-. On 12.12.2019, complainant started his journey from his house to Delhi on the said car and at about 6.00 a.m. when he reached near the Airport, Delhi then at that time one vehicle came from the right side of car and hit the same on the right side due to this, the car of complainant became unbalanced and struck against the barricades of policy which were on left side and complainant in order to save himself applied brakes of his car but at that time one motorcycle was coming from the back side and he hit his motorcycle into the car of the complainant. In the said accident, the car of the complainant was badly damaged from left side, right side and back side. The intimation in this regard was given to the OP no.1 and OP asked the complainant to get repaired his car from OP no.2 and the entire repairer amount will be paid by the OP no.2 as it is cashless policy. Thereafter, complainant took his vehicle to the OP no.2 and OP no.2 repaired the same and prepared the bill of Rs.61,395/- but OP no.1 approved the bill of Rs.26405/- by stating that they will pay the compensation of only right side damage and remaining things have damaged due to fault of driver hence no compensation would be given to him. The accident took place all of sudden and was not intentional in any way as such OP no.1 must pay entire amount but OP no.1 refused to pay the same, hence complainant has to pay Rs.34990/- from his own pocket. Complainant approached the OP no.1 several times and requested to make the remaining payment but OP no.1 flatly refused to pay the same. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that company has rightly paid the claim of the complainant. The complainant has taken car package policy not maintenance policy. The model of the vehicle was 2013 and at the time of giving the claim the vehicle was at 40% depreciation. OP no.1 paid Rs.26,400/- to the complainant on account of compensation. There was some old damages in the vehicle of the complainant at the time of accident which cannot be covered in the present accident. Some parts of the vehicle were in good condition, the complainant replaced the same at his own Will which are disallowed by surveyor of the company. There was an excess clause of Rs.1000/- and after deduction of excess clause, depreciation and salvage of Rs.616/- and Rs.24,600/- has been paid to the complainant on account of accident/damages cause in the accident on 12.12.2019. Rs.9376/- on account of parts and Rs.18,639/- has been paid as labour charges, totaling of Rs.26,400/- which is quite genuine. The complainant has also given satisfaction certificate to the OP no.1 after taking the compensation amount. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.2 has no concern whatsoever with the abovesaid complaint. Neither OP no.2 has to pay any amount to the complainant nor there is any cause of action against the OP no.2. The complainant came to the workshop of the OP no.2 and as per the request of the complainant the abovesaid accidental vehicle was repaired to the full satisfaction of the complainant and in this regard satisfaction note was also signed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that being an accident vehicle, the surveyor was appointed by the OP no.2 and accordingly repaired the vehicle and raised a bill to the tune of Rs.61,395/-, which was given to the complainant and accordingly as a part payment the complainant has made a payment of Rs.34990/- and the balance amount was made by the OP no.1 because the said vehicle was insured with the OP no.1 and in this regard receipt was duly signed by the complainant and deposited by the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that claim amount in the abovesaid complaint, if any, that is to be paid by the OP no.1 and OP no.2 has no concern whatsoever with the facts mentioned in the said complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of detail of accident Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, copy of registration certificate Ex.C4, copy of payment receipt Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 03.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of A.K. Bhola Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O1, copy of motor claim check list Ex.O2, copy of motor final survey report Ex.O3, copy of satisfaction/discharge note Ex.O4, copy of insurance policy Ex.O5 and closed the evidence on 24.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Singh Ex.OP2/A, copy of authority letter Ex.OP2/1, copy of tax invoice dated 20.12.2019 Ex.OP2/2, copy of claim form Ex.OP2/3, copy of satisfaction note Ex.OP2/4, copy of payment receipt Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence on 26.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his vehicle in question from OP no.1. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.12.2019 and in the said accident the vehicle was badly damaged. Complainant spent Rs. Rs.61395/- on the repair of the vehicle, but OP no.1 settled the claim of complainant only for Rs.26405/-, which is not as per actual loss and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the claim of the complainant was processed by the OP. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.26400/-. The said amount has allegedly been paid to the complainant. Complainant has issued satisfaction certificate after accepting that amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that accidental vehicle has  been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and in this regard satisfaction note was also signed by the complainant. OP no.2 raised a bill to the tune of Rs.61,395/-, which was given to the complainant and accordingly the complainant had made a payment of Rs.34990/- and the balance amount was made by the OP no.1. There is no role with regard of OP no.2 with regard to claim amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.              Admittedly, the vehicle in question was met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that the claim was lodged with the OP no.1, a surveyor was appointed by OP no.1 who has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.26,400/-. The said amount has already been paid to the complainant.

14.           OP no.1 has relied upon the motor final survey report Ex.O3 dated 31.12.2019 prepare by Automobile Engineer Surveyor an Loss Assessor, Valuer, who assess the net payable liability to the tune of Rs.26,400/-. OP no.1 further relied upon the satisfaction/discharge note Ex.O4 dated 12.12.2019. On perusal of the said satisfaction/discharge note, it found blank one and no amount has been mentioned in the said satisfaction note. On the other hand, OP no.2 has produced the copy of the same satisfaction/discharge note Ex.OP2/4 dated 12.12.2019, in which an amount of Rs.61395/- has been mentioned. It appears that OP no.1 had obtained the signature of the complainant on the blank satisfaction/discharge note. It has been proved from the contents of both the documents, the said documents have been filled up lateron and the signature of the complainant has been obtained on blank satisfaction/discharge note. If the said satisfaction notes be considered that complainant is entitled for the remaining claim amount but as per claim amount and amount mentioned in the said satisfaction/discharge note is equal.  It appears that OP no.2 has filled up the same amount in the satisfaction/discharge note which was taken by him. The satisfaction/discharge note Ex.O4 is blank one and it also appears that signature of the complainant upon the said note has been taken by the surveyor of the OP during the investigation. Thus, the abovesaid satisfaction note has no weightage.

15.           Accident took place on 12.12.2019. Model of the vehicle in question is 2013.  Hence, while considering the model of the vehicle, the surveyor of the OP rightly deducted the amount which was not payable.

16.           As per surveyor report Ex.O3, the loss has been assessed by the surveyor of the OP as Rs.26,400/- and same has already been paid. Hence, the report of the surveyor will prevail.  In this regard, we relied upon the authority of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as H.C. Saxena Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 1(2012) CPJ 420 (NC) 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 case titled as Dabrirrudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. I(2010) CPJ 141 (NC).  Further, United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC) 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.

17.           Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments and the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to the dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. 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: 02.03.2023

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     

                      Member