Haryana

Kaithal

187/21

Rishipal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S Kundu

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 187 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   30.07.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      28.03.2024.

 

Rishipal s/o Shri Gokal Ram aged 60 years, r/o H.No.325, Gali No.7, near new Grain Market, Ram Nagar, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                       Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager/Chairman Regd. Head Office No.19, Nungambakkam High Road, IV Lane, Chennai-600034.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Kaithal Karnal Road Main Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

 

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri S.S. Kundu, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-63-B-6570 which was fully insured with the OPs vide policy No.1107053120P105293596 for the period from 21.08.2020 to 20.08.2021 with IDV of Rs.10,00,000/-. That on 14.01.2021, when he was going to Narela from Sonepat, said vehicle overturned and due to this, the same was badly damaged. That he immediately reported the matter to the OPs on the same day i.e. 14.01.2021, who appointed a surveyor and after the survey, OPs asked him to get repair his vehicle and also instructed to deposit the bills with them, upon which, he got repaired the vehicle in the presence of said surveyor and employees of OPs and submitted the original bills of Rs.1,92,300/- with the OPs. That the OPs only cleared one bill of Rs.54,500/- in place of original bills and deposited Rs.54500/- in his account. That he visited the OPs various times and requested to release the balance claim amount, but on 19.07.2021, OPs refused to release the same. The above act and conduct of OPs, of not releasing his balance claim amount, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, stating therein no role has been played by OP No.1 and name of OP No.1 be struck off in the array of OPs. That after receiving the intimation about alleged incident, OPs immediately appointed Grover Associates to access the alleged loss, who submitted his report dated 15.03.2021, wherein, he specifically mentioned that there is actual payable loss of Rs.56000/- less policy excess clause of Rs.1500/-, but no spot survey was got conducted by the complainant intentionally, which is mandatory. That vehicle in question was himself shifted by the complainant to the workshop Kaithal without any intimation to the OPs and the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. That the OPs have already paid the claim of Rs.54500/- on 23.03.2021 to the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim as per surveyor report and now nothing remains due towards the OPs.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-63-B-6570, which was fully insured with the OPs for the period from 21.08.2020 to 20.08.2021 with IDV of Rs.10,00,000/-. He further argued that on 14.01.2021, when the complainant was going to Narela from Sonepat, said vehicle overturned and due to this, the same was badly damaged. He further argued that the complainant immediately reported the matter to the OPs on the same day, who appointed a surveyor and after the survey, OPs asked him to get repair his vehicle, upon which, the complainant got repaired the vehicle in the presence of said surveyor and employees of OPs and submitted the original bills of Rs.1,92,300/- with the OPs. He further argued that the OPs only cleared one bill of Rs.54,500/- in place of original bills and deposited Rs.54500/- in the account of complainant. He further argued that the complainant visited the OPs various times and requested to release the balance claim amount, but on 19.07.2021, OPs refused to release the same, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that after receiving the intimation about alleged incident, OPs immediately appointed Grover Associates to assess the alleged loss, who submitted his report dated 15.03.2021, wherein, he specifically mentioned that there is actual payable loss of Rs.56000/- less policy excess clause of Rs.1500/-. He further argued that the OPs have already paid the claim of Rs.54500/- on 23.03.2021 to the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim as per surveyor report and now nothing remains due towards the OPs. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

9.                Admittedly, the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle in question bearing Registration No.HR-63-B-6570 and the same was insured with the OPs for the period of 21.08.2020 to 20.08.2021 with IDV of Rs.10,00,000/-, vide Certificate of Insurance Annexure C-3. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 14.01.2021 and in this regard, complainant intimated to the OPs in this regard vide letter Annexure C-1. The OPs appointed a surveyor Grover Associates, who submitted its report dated 15.03.2021 Annexure R-1 and assessed the net payable amount to the tune of Rs.54,500/-, which has been paid by the OPs, to the complainant on 24.03.2021, as is evident from Statement of Account of complainant’s account Annexure C-4 (2^nd page).

10.              The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that on the asking of OPs, the complainant got repaired the said vehicle after spending total Rs.1,92,300/- vide bills Annexure C5 to C8, but contrary to it, OPs had paid only Rs.54500/- instead of full claim amount of Rs.1,92,300/-, to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed that OPs be directed to release the balance claim amount to him.

11.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OPs has specifically submitted that the amount which was assessed by the surveyor in its report Annexure R-1, has already been paid to the complainant, which has been accepted by him and now nothing remains due towards the OPs. He further submitted that the surveyor is an independent person, so, report of surveyor Annexure-R1, is taken into consideration, for deciding the compensation amount, in the complaint in hand. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments titled United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. Further in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal, II (2009) CPJ, 45 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the surveyor’s report being important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to contrary on record. Since in the case in hand, report of the surveyor Annexure R-1 is well explained and detailed one, therefore, in view of above-mentioned case law of superior Fora, we are of the considered view that OPs are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss, as assessed by the surveyor, in his report Annexure R-1, to the tune of Rs.56,500/- and not Rs.1,92,300/-, as demanded by the complainant, and the said amount of Rs.56,500/- (as assessed by the surveyor) has already been paid by OPs to the complainant in his account on 24.03.2021, which has also been admitted by the complainant in his complaint himself, as such, nothing remains due qua the OPs. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, therefore, the present is also liable to be dismissed.

12.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, we found no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same, it being devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:28.03.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.