The following case highlights the need to retain all vouchers, bills and payment records in case a claim happens in the absence of which the loss assessed by the surveyor will be taken as final.
********************************************************************
Case Details
********************************************************************
Ram Singh aged 45 years, s/o Naranjan Singh r/o Village & Post Office: Badala, Tehsil and Distt. Amritsar at present r/o village Dhoot Kalan, Block Bhunga, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.
.......... Complainant
versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., G.T. Road, Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur, through its Branch Manager.
2.
ICICI Bank Ltd., Ist Floor, 36, The Mall, Amritsar, through its Branch Manager.
........... Opposite Parties
1. The complainant namely Ram Singh has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “herein after referred as the Act”. Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that the vehicle bearing registration No. PB02-AR-9946 was under HPA through OP No. 2. That OP No. 2 got insured the said vehicle from OP No. 1 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
2.
It is the allegation of the complainant that on 26.1.2007, the said vehicle was being driven by Sh. Jaswant Singh from Bhunga to Hoshiarpur.That when the said vehicle reached near village Abbowal, it met with an accident with tractor trolley. The driver, Jaswant Singh was holding a valid driving licence. The vehicle was badly damaged in the accident. The matter was reported to PS Hariana on 31.1.2007. The complainant also informed the opposite party about the accident. The opposite party deputed the surveyor.
3.
It is further the case of the complainant that he got repaired the said vehicle from Basra Sales Corporation and Manohar Auto Diesel and Electricals. M/s. M.L. Mehta & Company, the surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 58,216.73, whereas the complainant had spent the amount of Rs. 1,13,822/- on the repair of the vehicle. The detail of the amount spent upon the repair of the vehicle had been given vide para No. 4 of the complaint.
4.
It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 had not allowed the payment of the actual loss. It is prayed that the OP No. 1 may be directed to pay Rs. 1,13,822/- alongwith interest and litigation costs.
5.
The OP No. 1 filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability, pre-mature, suppression of material facts and cause of action were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. However, it is admitted that the vehicle No. PB-02-AR-9946 was insured with the replying OP. It is denied that the accident took place on 26.1.2007. That DDR No. 8 dated 31.1.2007 is a result of manipulation with the police of PS Hariana to get the false claim. It is denied that the replying OP allowed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired.
6.
It is further replied that the preliminary survey was conducted by Mr. Sham Sunder Sharma, who submitted his report dated 21.2.2007, and thereafter, a final survey report dated 20.9.2007 was obtained from M.L. Mehta and Co., Surveyor and Loss Assessors, who after considering the estimate bills of M/s. Basra Sales Corporation, Jalandhar and M/s. Bachan Brothers, Denting Works, Jalandhar, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 58,216.73. It is denied that the complainant has spent the amount of Rs. 1,13,822/- on the repair of the vehicle. It is denied that the complainant got the vehicle repaired from M/s. Basra Sales Corporation and Manohar Auto Diesel and Electricals. The bills as per detail given under Sr. No. (i) to (x) in para No. 4 of the complaint had not been submitted to the replying OP at the time of assessment of the loss to the vehicle. The other alleged bills mentioned under Sr. No. (i) to (x) in para No. 4 of the complaint regarding repair had been manipulated to get false claim.
7.
The OP No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte on 18.3.2009.
8.
In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, copy of insurance policy – Mark-A, survey report dated 20.9.2007 – Ex. C-2, copy of RC – Mark-B, original cheque dated 15.1.2009 – Ex. C-3, another cheque dated 15.1.2009 – Ex. C-4, DDR dated 31.1.2007 – Ex. C-5, copy of DL dated 9.3.2006 – Mark-C, bill dated 1.10.2008- Mark-D, bills – Mark-E, Mark-F, bill dated 3.1.2009 – Mark-G, bills dated 3.9.2008 – Mark-H, Mark-J, bill dated 31.3.2009 – Mark-K, bills dated 17.4.2007 – Mark-L, Mark-M, Mark-N, bill dated 2.1.2009 – Mark-O, bill dated 20.3.2007 – Mark-P, bill dated 8.4.2007 – Mark-Q, bill dated 3.4.2007 – Mark-R, receipt of Parking charges – Mark-S, Fee for survey – Mark-T, Labour charges – Mark-U, affidavit of Sh. Harish Kumar – Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.
9.
In rebuttal, the OP No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashwani Verma – Ex. OP-2, additional affidavit of Ashwani Verma- Ex. OP-3, Motor Survey report dated 21.2.2007 – Mark OP-4 (3 sheets), estimate of Basra Sales Corporation – Mark OP-5 (4 sheets), estimate of Bachan Brothers – Mark OP-6 (2 sheets), photocopy of DDR – Mark OP-7, letter dated 29.1.2009 – Mark OP-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP NO. 1.
10.
The learned counsel for the complainant and OP No. 1 filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
11.
The other facts are admitted. The complainant has claimed that OP No. 1 may be directed to pay Rs. 1,13,822/- alongwith interest and litigation costs, whereas OP No. 1 – Insurance Company had raised the plea that the surveyor has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 58,216.73. Therefore, the only point which calls determination from this Court is whether the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs. 1,13,822/- or Rs. 58,216.73?
12.
The OP No. 1 filed the written arguments. That vide Para No. 4, at Page No. 4 of the written arguments, the OP No. 1 had stated that they are ready to pay the amount assessed by the Surveyor qua Survey Report – Ex. OP-1 dated 20.9.2007 subject to deduction of Rs. 2,500/-, the value of salvage.
13.
The complainant has produced on record the Invoices/Bills – Mark-D to Mark-H, Mark-J to Mark-R. Admittedly, the complainant has neither produced on record the receipts nor the affidavits of the persons to whom the payment was made to prove the actual payment, therefore, it loses its evidentiary value and on the contrary, the OP-1 has placed on record the report of the M/s. M.L. Mehta & Co., the surveyor & loss assessor – Ex. OP-1, qua which the nett. loss to the vehicle in dispute had been assessed to the tune of Rs.58,216.73. Since the complainant has failed to produce the receipts to prove the payment of Rs.1,13,822/-, therefore,the report of the Surveyor qua Ex. OP-1 is to be accepted as the Surveyor is an expert and also an independent person to assess the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant , thus, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant can be allowed on the basis of the Survey Report – Ex. OP-1.
14.
As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.58,216.73 to the complainant with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 27.1.2009 till realization alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- within one month. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.
No comments:
Post a Comment