Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. 353
Instituted on : 22.07.2019
Decided on : 08.11.2024
Rajender Singh S/o Sukhi Ram resident of Village Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak.
………………Complainant
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Limited, service be effected through its Divisional Manager, Rohtak.
…………….....Opposite Party
COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manjeet Panchal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant, are that he is owner of a truck bearing registration no. HR-46D-9419,which was duly insured with the opposite party, vide insurance policy no. 33180131170100009300 valid from 20.01.2018 to 19.01.2019. The said truck met with an accident on 19.05.2018 at Sitapur. The vehicle was badly damaged in the accident and the survey was got conducted by the opposite party. The surveyor gave the survey report and estimated the loss of Rs.4,83,700/-. Complainant got his vehicle repaired from differentworkshops and all the amount of repair was spent by the complainant himself.Accordingly the claim was lodged with the opposite party and the opposite party has only given the amount of Rs.1,49,461/-. The remaining amount of Rs.3,34,239/- has not been paid by the opposite party despite repeated requests of the complainant. The act of the opposite party is absolutely illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that the opposite party may kindly ben directed to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.3,34,239/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in services and litigation expenses besides any other relief, which this Commission may found deem fit and appropriate.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed the written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party. The New India Assurance Company has already paid the amount of Rs.1,42,500/- to the complainant as per survey report and insurance policy’s terms and condition after discussion with the repairer in the presence of complainant and it was amicably settled. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and now he wants to get the unlawful benefits in terms of money, by filing this present complaint.As the claim amount has already been disbursed as assessed by the statutory surveyor under section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, which is valid and tenable, therefore, the claim of complainant for demand of additional sum is untenable and unsustainable. The assessment of the claim was based on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the compulsory deductions and deductions towards the plastic & rubber parts, repairable parts, age of the vehicle and previous damages etc. were to be considered while assessing the claim. The opposite party insurance company has already disbursed the full and final amount to the complainant. Hence, there arose no cause of action as alleged. On merits of the case, the opposite party denied the occurrence of accident on 19.05.2018 and has submitted that report of surveyor cannot be brushedaside as the said report is a valuable document and it was mandatory to deduct the amount of excess clause, depreciation, depreciation of parts, plastic, rubber etc. It is further submitted that mere production of bills and estimate cannot be the basis for discarding the report of surveyor. The complainant is not entitled for the relief sought and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-21 and closed the same on dated 06.01.2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex R-1 to Ex. R-9 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 03.03.2023.
-
5. In the present case, the complainant had demanded an amount of Rs.334239/- from the respondent as remaining payment. The complainant has submitted that the estimated loss in the vehicle in question was Rs.483700/- whereas the insurance company paid an amount of Rs.149461/- on account of damages suffered by him in his vehicle. As per the respondent, the vehicle has been surveyed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma Surveyor and Loss Assessor and he submitted his report with the insurance company which has been placed on record as Ex.C3. Perusal of this report itself shows that the estimated loss was assessed by the surveyor as Rs.483700/-. We have minutely examined the surveyor report very carefully and came into the conclusion that surveyor has not made the assessment correctly. In this report the surveyor has given permission to insert the old parts instead of some new parts, replacing of some parts have been rejected by the surveyor without any reason and the reason of refusal has also not been mentioned in this report. For Example, the total estimated cost of remaking of the cabin with old and new material is mentioned as 160000/-, but the assessment against this head is only Rs.62000/-. Perusal of photographs placed on record by the respondent as well as the survey report shows that steering cabin, dash board and so many parts have been badly damaged in the accident. Whereas so many parts have been shown intact by the surveyor at the time of assessment. The dashboard was completely damaged and the estimated cost of dashboard is Rs.115000/- but against this head, the surveyor has only assessed Rs.34500/- i.e. for second handdash board. Some other parts mentioned at Sr. no.8, 15, 24 & 25 have not been assessed or wrongly deducted by the surveyor. The surveyor has wrongly assessed the loss and the reasons has not been mentioned in this report that why he has assessed the less claim. In this regard it is observed that when the complainant had paid full insurance amount, then the opposite party should also consider the value of new parts but the opposite party has calculated the value of old dashboard, which is illegal. The value of dashboard is Rs.115000/-, so as per our view opposite party should assess the value of alleged parts after deducting the 30% depreciation on it i.e. Rs.80500/-(Rs.115000/- less 30%). We have also assessed the value of steering cabin as Rs.80000/- and some more parts which have been wrongly or less assessed by the surveyor is Rs.40000/-. Hence as per our view complainant is entitled for Rs.205000/-(Rs.80500/- + Rs.80000/- + Rs.40000/-)in addition to the amount already paid by the insurance company to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to pay the same to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.205000/-(Rupees two lacs and five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.07.2019 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.11.2024
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.......................................
Vijender Singh, Member
