Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/100

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Compnay Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Inderpal Vohra, Adv.

16 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 100 of 30.11.2015

                                 Date of decision               : 16.09.2016

 

Surinder Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Sh. Teja Singh, resident of Village Sukhrampur, Ward No.16, Rupnagar, Tehsil  & District Rupnagar.

 

                                                       ......Complainant

                                             Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Nangal Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager.   

 

                                                                                   ....Opposite Party

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 Sh.Inderpal Vohra Advocate, counsel for the complainant

 Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party   

 

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             Sh. Surinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) .

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took an insurance policy having Dep Cap Coverage i.e. Bumper to Bumper Insurance, from the O.P. for his vehicle/truck having registration No.PB-12-T-5297, which issued him a cover note No.469454 dated 31.3.2014. At the time of issuance of the said insurance policy, the O.P. assured him that whatever loss he will suffer, same will be paid by the O.P. only as Dep Cap benefit. Unfortunately, his truck met with an accident during the validity period of the insurance policy. He got it repaired and submitted the bill No.399 dated 25.3.2015 for an amount of Rs.52,078/- with the O.P., with regard to repair work. It is further stated that his truck was got inspected by the surveyor of the O.P., but instead of making the payment of Rs.52078/-, the O.P. has paid only an amount of Rs.34025/- lesser than the amount which was agreed to be paid, at the time of issuance of the cover note. He requested the O.P. many times for making the payment of remaining amount along with interest, but it had paid no heed to his request. On 09.10.2015, a legal notice was served upon the O.P. for making payment of the remaining amount, inspite of that, the O.P. has not paid any amount to him. It is, therefore, prayed that complaint may kindly be allowed and O.P. may kindly be directed to pay Rs.18,053/-Rs.1000 = Rs.17,053/-  i.e. the remaining amount, Rs.20,000/- as damages for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs along with interest.

 3.               On being put to the notice, the O.P. filed written version taking preliminary objections that; the complaint is not maintainable as the answering insurance company has already paid the claim amount to the complainant as per policy; that the payment of the claim amount has been admitted by the complainant and the claimant is wrongly demanding a sum of Rs.52,078/- i.e. instead of Rs.34,025/- paid by the answering opposite party; On merits, it is stated that that the complainant has obtained insurance coverage vide cover note No.469454 dated 31.3.2014. It is wrong that any bumper to bumper insurance cover/dep cap was given. Complainant was duly provided with the copy of the policy and the said policy pertains to commercial vehicle package policy.the complainant has obtained insurance coverage vide cover note No.46, covering the truck in question w.e.f. 31.3.2014 to 30.3.2015 vide policy No.35230131130100006617 strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant has duly intimated with regard to the claim under the policy, but the said claim was duly processed under the policy as per terms and conditions as agreed between the parties. The competent authority of the company has deputed Surveyor Sh. Sudesh Kumar Beond, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Khanna who has submitted his report dated 6.4.2015. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.34,025/- as per terms and conditions of the policy and not more than that. The complainant is not entitled to a sum of Rs.52,078/- as claimed in the complaint. Nothing more is due to be paid to the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant, Ex. C1, along with photocopies of documents, Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Surinder Pal Sharma, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh. Suredh Kumar Beond, Surveyor Ex.OP-2 along with photocopies of documents ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.   

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the complainant has obtained commercial vehicle package policy. After lodging of the claim by the complainant, the O.P. has already disbursed him the claim amount of Rs.34,025/-, as per terms and conditions of the policy, on the basis of report of the surveyor and nothing is due to be paid to the complainant. Therefore, complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed, being without any merits.

The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that complainant has obtained an insurance policy with Dep Cap Coverage from the O.P., for the period from 31.3.2014 to 30.3.2015 as is evident from the Cover Note, Ex.C2. During the validity period of the said policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident, he got it prepared from the Globe CV Private Limited and had paid Rs.52,078/- to it, as is evident from the receipt, Ex.C3. He lodged the claim with the O.P. for refund of the amount of Rs.52,078/- incurred on the repair of the vehicle in quetsion. Since he had obtained a Dep Cap Policy, therefore, he is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.52,078/- i.e. the cost of repair, after deduction of Rs.1000/- i.e. login charges. But the O.P. paid him Rs.34,025/- and it is still liable to pay Rs.17,053/-.  Therefore, O.P.  may be directed to pay Rs.17,053/- along with interest and not only this, the O.P. is also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses.

From the letter dated 20.3.2014, Ex.OP4, it is evident that on 20.3.2014, the O.P. launched a new policy i.e. Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle Package Policy –zero dep-zero X clusion. From the Motor Vehicle Cover Note dated 31.3.2014, Ex.C2, it is apparent that, it has been issued by the O.P. for Dep Cap Insurance Policy for the period from 31.3.2014 to 30.3.2015 and the amount of Rs.7,125/-, has accordingly been charged. From the Tax Invoice Ex.C3, it is evident that Globe CV Private Limited has charged Rs.52,078/- for the repair of the vehicle in question, which met with an accident during the validity period of the insurance policy and the complainant has paid the same to the repairer, as is evident from receipt Ex.C5. Once, the O.P. has issued a cover note for Dep Cap insurance policy and if the policy has wrongly been issued as not being dep cap, then the complainant should not suffere for the mistake of the O.P. The O.P. was thus, liable to refund the total repair charges, but the O.P. has paid Rs.34,025/-, instead of Rs.52,078/- i.e. the total cost of repair and as such, O.P. is still liable to pay Rs.17,034/-, as prayed for by the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the interest on the said amount.  Not only this, the complainant is also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:-

1.  To pay Rs.17,053/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization

2.   To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. 

3.       To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation costs.

The O.P. is further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 7.               The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                      (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated  16.09.2016                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                                 MEMBER.