Haryana

Karnal

CC/207/2019

Rishi Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Dutt Sharma

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 207 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.16.04.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 05.11.2019

 

Rishi Pal son of Shri Hukam Chand resident of VPO Sagga, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional officer Karnal.

2. Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. N.H. 1, Karnal through its partner/proprietor.

3. Brij Mohan Chopra (Surveyor & Loss Assessor) resident of House no.2242, Sector-7, Urban Estate Karnal.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh…….President.

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member  

 

 Present:  Shri S.D. Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Naveen Kheterpal Advocate for OPs no.1 & 3.

                   Shri Vishal Kundi Advocate for OP no.3.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of LMV( Car) bearing registration no.HR-05AQ-8232. The said vehicle was insured by the complainant with the OP no.1, vide policy no.35440231180300001604, valid from 14.10.2018 to 13.10.2019. On 16.12.2018 at about 7.30 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident near Toll Tax Karnal, and in the said accident the said car has badly damaged. Thereafter, the complainant makes a telephonic call to the official of the OP regarding the incident. The OP no.1 appointed the OP no.3 as surveyor. The surveyor reached at the spot and inspected the vehicle. As per the instruction and direction of the OP no.3 the complainant got the said vehicle repaired by spending huge amount of Rs.30,425/-. Thereafter, complainant approached in the office of the OP no.1 and submitted all the relevant documents, after receiving the documents the official of the OP no.1 assured the complainant that they would settle the claim of the complainant very soon. Thereafter, complainant approached the office of OP no.1 so many times and requested to settle the claim but OP no.1 always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately OP no.1 has become ready to pay a sum of Rs.20,200/- which is very less, whereas the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.30,425/- on the repair of his vehicle. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merit, it is pleaded that after getting intimation of damage vehicle in question, the OP deputed Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who conducted the survey and submitted his report. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.20,200/- and after that the claim of complainant has been settled and a sum of Rs.20,200/- has been paid by the OP in full and final settlement of the claim. So, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that OP had paid lesser amount to him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1 and 3. 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 cause of action; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.2 has repaired the vehicle of the complainant upto his satisfaction and there is no issue in this regard between them. The dispute if any is between the OPs no.1 and 3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 20.08.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Kumar Bhola Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Brij Mohan Chopra Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 19.09.2019.

6.             OP no.2 led no evidence after availing several opportunities, hence the evidence of the OP no.2 closed by court order dated 23.10.2019.

7.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant  got insured his vehicle  bearing registration no.HR-05AQ-8232 with the OP no.1, vide policy no.35440231180300001604, valid from 14.10.2018 to 13.10.2019. On 16.12.2018 at about 7.30 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident near Toll Tax Karnal, and in the said accident the said car has badly damaged. Thereafter, the complainant makes a telephonic call to the official of the OP regarding the incident. The OP no.1 appointed the OP no.3 as surveyor. The surveyor reached at the spot and inspected the vehicle. As per the instruction and direction of the OP no.3 the complainant got the said vehicle repaired by spending huge amount of Rs.30,425/- but OP no.1 is ready to pay Rs.20,200/- which is very less.

9.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs no.1 and 3 is that after getting intimation of damage vehicle in question, the OP deputed Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who conducted the survey and submitted his report. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.20,200/- and after that the claim of complainant has been settled and a sum of Rs.20,200/- has been paid by the OP in full and final settlement of the claim.

10.            The case of the OP no.2 is that OP no.2 has repaired the vehicle of the complainant upto his satisfaction and there is no issue in this regard between them. The dispute if any is between the OPs no.1 and 3.

11.            Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the currency of the policy. The OP no.1 deputed surveyor and Loss Assessor, who conducted the survey and submitted his report Ex.R1/Ex.C4. As per survey report, net liability was Rs.20,200/- and said amount has been paid to the complainant vide payment voucher Ex.R2.

12.            Learned counsel of the complainant submits that the policy of car was Nil Depreciation Policy and the complainant is also entitled remaining amount of Rs.10,225- (30425-20200 already paid) from the OP no.1.

13.            On the contrary, learned counsel of the OP no.1 submits that prepaid amount as assessed by the surveyor has already been given to the complainant and complainant has demanded the expenses of the parts which were not damaged in the said accident. Said parts/repairs has been done by the OP no.2 at the wishes of the complainant and complainant has no right to claim the same before the OP.

14.            As per survey report Ex.C4/Ex.R1 the claimed amount is Rs.80,508/- and assessed amount is Rs.20,200/-. But as per the version of the complainant he has spent only Rs.30,425/- for repair his car. The survey has disallowed the parts which were not covered under the accident loss. So, we are of the considered view that the report of surveyor is justified. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

15.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint 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: 05.11.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

         (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

               Member                        Member