Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/869/2016

Gurvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

02 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	869 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	07.10.20116
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2017

 

                                       

                                               

Gurvinder Singh s/o Sh.Gurcharan Singh r/o Village Karimpura, P.O. Nogawan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-IV, SCO 357-358, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant

                      Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant got insured his TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.PB-52A-0300 with the OP vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C-1) for the period from 16.02.2016 to 15.02.2017.  On 08.06.2016, he went to Bassi Pathan in the said car and parked the same in the market where it suddenly caught fire and burnt. He also lodged DDR No.12 dated 08.06.2016, Annexure C-3 with the Police Station Bassi Pathana.  He informed the OP accordingly and M/s Macro Motors, Mohali, authorized workshop of the Tata Motors prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.3,25,858/- (Annexure C-4). The surveyor of the OP assessed the loss as total loss.  However, the claim was not settled and therefore, he sent a letter dated 05.09.2016 to the OP requiring it to settle the claim within 10 days but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP has admitted the factual matrix of the case and pleaded that the complainant himself is responsible for non-settlement of the claim as he failed to furnish the cancellation of the RC of the vehicle which is mandatory condition prior to settlement of the claim despite writing a letter dated 28.07.2016. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The parties led evidence.
4.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         In its replication, the complainant has specifically stated that during the survey, it was found that the car was not repairable and the surveyor has got his consent under the instruction of the OP for settlement of the claim on net of salvage basis without RC.  This fact is also evident from the surveyor report because the surveyor has worked out the loss on net of salvage without RC for Rs.54,000/- subject to the policy terms and conditions and on completion of all other claims formalities by the insured as per the requirement of claim settling office.  In our view, once the Surveyor of the OP has assessed the loss on net of salvage without RC to the tune of Rs.54000/- then the demand of the OP for cancellation of the RC does not appears to be correct.   In this view of the matter, non-settlement of the claim despite the receipt of the surveyor report amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
6. .            In Dabiruddin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,& Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), it was held that Surveyor’s report being important document, cannot be easily brushed aside.  The insurer was held liable to pay loss assessed by the Surveyor, with interest.               
7.         Same view was taken in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New Good Luck Retrading Works, III (2009) CPJ 262, wherein it was held that Surveyor’s report cannot be brushed aside easily, without valid justification.
8.         In latest authority reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Febama Agencies, I (2013) CPJ 133 (NC), it was held that report of Surveyor  is  an  important  document and  it  is to be relied upon unless, it is contradicted by more credible evidence.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed as under ;-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- as assessed, on net of salvage basis without RC, by the surveyor to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. 

This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02/05/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER