| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 21.3.2017 Decided on: 6.1.2021 Sunil Kumar aged 35 years s/o Jeet Singh r/o H.No.1691/4, Tobha Chet Singh, Nabha Gate, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Regional Manager, DO II, Near Leela Bhawan, Opp. Income Tax Office, Patiala. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Harpreet Singh, counsel for complainant. Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OP. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sunil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant got his vehicle bearing No.PB-11BH-9810 insured with the OP vide policy No. 36150031150100007293 for the period from 11.9.2015 to 10.9.2016 for the sum assured of Rs.37,000/-.
- It is averred that the complainant met with an accident and DDR No.50 dated 2.8.2016 was registered with P.S.Civil Lines, Patiala. The complainant also filed a claim with regard to the damage to the vehicle with the OP, who appointed Sh.Ranjit Singh Jassal as surveyor. It is further averred that the complainant was astonished to receive a letter dated 25.1.2017 whereby he was informed to get the vehicle repaired.
- It is further averred that the vehicle is of total loss and cannot be got repaired and the complainant is entitled to Rs.37000/- being sum assured. The complainant got sent a legal notice to OP on 7.2.2017 through registered post which was duly received by the OP but it did not give any response. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OP to pay the insurance amount of Rs.37000/-alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation and any other relief which this Commission may deem fit.
- Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP. Who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections. In the preliminary objections it is admitted that the complainant has obtained insurance policy No. 36150031150100007293 of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-11BH-9810 for the period from 11.9.2015 to 10.9.2016 strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
- It is further admitted that the complainant has intimated one own damage claim vide intimation letter dated 10.8.2016 having intimated that the insured scooter has met with an accident on 4.7.2016 near 22 No. Phatak, Patiala. It is further admitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant also submitted the claim form with regard to the said loss and the competent authority of the OP deputed IRDA approved independent surveyor Sh.Ranjit Singh Jassal, to assess the loss who requested the complainant to get the scooter repaired but the complainant did not get the scooter repaired and was adamant to get the vehicle declared as total loss.
- It is further submitted that the surveyor has explained that the scooter cannot be declared as total loss and as such the complainant should get the scooter repaired but the complainant failed to do so .It is further submitted that the surveyor has submitted his report dated 27.3.2017 and has advised for the repair of the motorcycle having assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13,259/-It is further submitted that the insurance company is still ready to consider the claim as per the survey report. It is pleaded that the OP has not ever denied the claim of the complainant but as the vehicle was in repairable condition, so the same cannot be settled as total loss as demanded wrongly by the complainant and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, the OP reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections and after denying all other averments made in the complaint has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In evidence the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.Ranjit Singh Jassal, surveyor, affidavit, Ex.OPB of Ms. Gurveen Kaur, Sr. D. M. alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got his vehicle registered with the OP vide policy No. 36150031150100007293 valid for the period from 11.9.2015 to 10.9.2016.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant met with an accident on 2.8.2016 regarding which DDR No.50 at P.S.Civil Lines, Patiala was registered on the same date. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant filed a claim with regard to the damage and Sh.Ranjit Singh Jassal was appointed as surveyor and complainant was astonished to receive a letter whereby he was informed that the vehicle should be got repaired. The ld. counsel further argued that vehicle is of total loss and cannot be repaired. As such the complaint be allowed and OP be directed to pay Rs.37000/-.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that admittedly the vehicle was insured with the OP. The ld. counsel further argued that under the terms and conditions of the policy the company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the vehicle. The ld. counsel has further argued that the surveyor has given his report and according to the report, the assessed loss is of Rs.13259/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the surveyor has requested the complainant to get the vehicle repaired but the complainant did not do so and as such the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove his complaint, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint.Ex.C1 is the legal notice, Ex.C2 is copy of postal receipt, Ex.C3 is the policy, Ex.C4 is the medical record of Columbia Asia, Hospital, Patiala.
- On the other hand, the OP tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Ranjit Singh Jassal, surveyor who has submitted his report, Ex.OPB affidavit of Ms.Gurveen Kaur, Sr.D.M. who has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is insurance policy, Ex.OP2 is survey report, Ex.OP3 is final survey report.
- Admittedly the vehicle i.e. scooter No.PB-11BH-9810 was insured with the OP from 11.9.2015 to 10.9.2016.As per the complainant the vehicle met with an accident on 2.8.2016 regarding which DDR No.50 with P.S.Civil Lines, Patiala was registered. As per the complainant, the OP appointed Sh.Ranjit Singh Jassal, as the surveyor but the surveyor has given wrong report as the vehicle is of total loss and cannot be repaired.
- In the preliminary objections of the written reply the OP as stated as follows:
“The company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the vehicle or part there of and/or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage and the liability of the OP shall not exceed: - For total loss/constructive total loss of the vehicle the insured’s declared value (IDV) of the vehicle (including accessories thereon) as specified in the schedule as the value of the wreck.
- For partial losses i.e. losses other than total loss/constructive total loss of the vehicle actual and reasonable cost of repair and/or replacement of parts lost or damaged subject to depreciation as per limits specified”.
So as per the written statement the company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the vehicle. - The surveyor report is Ex.OP2 on the file and as per the surveyor report the total estimate as per the policy is Rs.13259/-.The letter, Ex.OP3 was written to the complainant in which it was mentioned that the complainant is allowed to get repair the vehicle so that the final survey report can be issued.
- As per the complainant the motor cycle is of total loss but no photographs of the motor cycle have been placed on the file by the complainant or the OP in the absence of which it cannot be gathered that whether the motor cycle is of total loss or not. The insurance company was duty bound to pay the amount of Rs.13259/- of the repair charges. They have not paid the same nor the complainant has got the motor cycle repaired. So the insurance company is also negligent in giving service to its clients to which they are duty bound.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands allowed and the complainant is directed to get his motor cycle repaired and submit the repair bills to the insurance company and insurance company shall pay the bill as submitted by the complainant to its satisfaction. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:6.1.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
