State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Shanti Chauhan. vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 5 May, 2022
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
F.A. No. : 230/2019
Date of Presentation: 27.06.2019
Order reserved on : 11.04.2022
Date of Order : 05.05.2022
......
Smt. Shanti Chauhan W/o Shri Ramesh Chauhan
R/o Chauhan Cottage, Inder Nagar, Dhalli, Shimla-12.
.... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director, Having its
Registered Office at Reliance Centre,
19 Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate
Mumbai-400001.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
1st Floor, Rain Basera Building, Khalini, Shimla (H.P).
Through its Branch Manager.
....Respondents/Opposite parties
__ ________
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K.Verma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For Appellant : Ms. Anita, Advocate vice
Ms. Anu Tuli Azta, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1&2: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
______
Justice Inder Singh Mehta
O R D E R :-
The instant appeal is arising from the order passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 239/2016 titled Smt. Shanti Chauhan Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019) versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. decided on 25.05.2019.
2. Brief facts stated are that complainant has purchased vehicle LMV Car Magna bearing registration No. HP-52A-2775 in the year 2008. The vehicle was financed by ICICI Bank for self use. Vehicle in question was insured with the opposite parties for consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- w.e.f 19.02.2014 to 18.02.2015. The vehicle was parked in the evening of 23.01.2015 at U turn on the main road at Inder Nagar, Dhalli, Shimla at a safe place. On 24.01.2015, in the morning, when husband of the complainant visited the vehicle, then it transpired that vehicle had been damaged due to falling of stones from the hill top during night. Intimation was given to the opposite party on 24.01.2015 and it was assured by the Insurance Company that Surveyor shall be appointed very soon and the loss being not on very high side and there is no need to lodge any Police report and accordingly no Police report was lodged. Spot survey of the vehicle was conducted and few documents like Registration Certificate, Driving Licence and estimate of repair were demanded and the same were supplied well within time. Vehicle was got repaired at Thakur Workshop and a sum of Rs. 33,800/- was paid in cash. Copy of cash memo is Annexure C-5 and few articles were purchased from Swati Car Care and copy of said bill amounting to Rs. 8120/- is Annexure C-6.
2
Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019)
3. Opposite parties issued a letter on 11.02.2015 stating that the cause and nature of the accident are not matching with the damage of the vehicle and the complainant was required to explain damage and also to file police report. The complainant specifically replied that there was no need for police report and as such no report was got entered in the police and as far as the damages are concerned, cause and nature cannot be explained by the complainant as at the relevant time complainant was not present at the spot. Opposite parties have failed to settle the claim of the complainant. In the month of March, 2015, a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was deposited in the account of the complainant by the opposite parties without her knowledge and without any consent, whereas she has handed over the estimate of Rs. 33,800/- to the opposite parties and spent Rs. 41,920/- on the repair of the vehicle. The amount of Rs. 4,500/- was not acceptable to the complainant.
4. Per contra, opposite parties contested the complaint by filing reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand and suppressed material facts and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle in question which was damaged in the accident during the intervening night of 23/24.01.2015. It is also admitted that the vehicle was insured with the opposite parties and IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 3
Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019) 2,00,000/-. On receipt of intimation with respect to the accident, opposite parties appointed M/s Arora Associates, surveyor- cum-loss assessor to conduct survey of vehicle who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,983/- and the surveyor tried to contact the complainant, but could not do so. Complainant while receiving the said amount has executed discharge voucher in full and final satisfaction of the claim on 15.04.2015 without any protest and as such she is not entitled for claim.
5. Learned District Forum below dismissed the complaint.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Forum, Shimla, H.P. appellant preferred the present appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question and the said vehicle met with an accident. Information of the same was given to the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company appointed surveyor and loss was assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 33,800/- Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs. 4,475/- without any consent on behalf of appellant. She further submitted that appellant has ever entered into any agreement with the opposite party nor there is any signature of the appellant on the discharge voucher. Therefore, 4 Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019) the appellant is entitled to the amount of loss as per the repair bill annexed with complaint and also entitled for damages. Counsel of the appellant further submitted that the appellant is entitled for the amount higher than the surveyor's assessed in his report. She prays appeal be allowed and order of learned District Forum be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondents has submitted that on receiving information regarding incident, opposite parties appointed surveyor, who carried out spot survey and submitted surveyor report Annexure R-4 annexed with the reply. He further submitted that as per the report, the surveyor has assessed the loss at a sum of Rs. 9,983/- on repair basis. Learned counsel of the respondents has further submitted that as a goodwill gesture, the respondents company has already paid Rs. 4,475/- to the complainant. The said amount credited in the account of the complainant ipso-facto indicates that settlement reached between the parties. He further submitted that the said amount was deposited on 15.04.2015 and the complaint has been filed in October, 2016. No notice of protest has been issued to the respondents company qua depositing of said amount. He further submitted that there is no iota of any allegation on this account, therefore, contention of learned counsel of the appellant is false, baseless and order passed by learned District Forum below does not required any inference and relied upon judgement :
1. UIIC Ltd. Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills, 1999 (2) 5 Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019) CPJ 10 SC Para-No. 6 & 7.
2. Jagdish Kainthla Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company 2016 (4) CPJ 35 Para No. 8 and 9.
3. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Combined Medical Institute Private Ltd., 2015 (3) CPJ 503 NC Para-5 to
10.
4. MJRJ Medichem Surgicals Vs National Insurance Company Limited, 2015 (1) CPJ 681 (NC) Para No. 12-18.
5. A.P.Jos Vs. ICICI Lombard, 2013 (2) CPJ 386 NC Para No. 8 to 15.
FINDINGS :
10. It is not disputed fact that the complainant/appellant is registered owner of vehicle LMV Car Magna bearing registration No. HP-52A-2775 in the year 2008. Copy of registration certificate is Annexure C-1. It is not disputed that vehicle in question was insured with the opposite parties/respondents from 19.02.2014 to 20.02.2015. Insurance Policy is Annexure C-2.
11. Complainant has stated in her affidavit that the vehicle in question got damaged when it was parked at U-turn on the main road at Inder Nagar, Dhalli, Shimla during the intervening night of 23/24.01.2015 due to falling of stones from the hill top regarding which intimation was given to the opposite parties.
12. This fact has not been denied by the opposite parties.
13. Opposite parties appointed surveyor who has assessed the loss at Rs.9,983/-. Report of the surveyor is Annexure R-4.
6
Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019)
14. Opposite parties have made payment of Rs. 4,475/- to the complainant out of Rs. 41,920/- (Rs. 33,800/- + Rs.8120/-) as claimed by the complainant. It has come in the affidavit of the authorized signatory of opposite parties Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur that complainant has executed discharge voucher after receiving sum of Rs. 4,475/-.
15. The respondents company in the reply has admitted that on receiving the intimation appointed M/s Arora Associates as surveyor and loss assessor to conduct survey of vehicle in question i.e HP-52A-2775. He carried out the survey of the vehicle and assessed the loss caused to the vehicle amounting to Rs.9,983/- on 10.02.2015. The survey report is Annexure R-4.
16. As per survey report the loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs. 9,983/- in terms of the policy.
17. It is apparent on the basis of the record Annexure R-4 survey report, the loss incurred in the said vehicle was amounting to Rs. 9,983/-. Once the amount of Rs. 9,983/- was assessed, there was no occasion or point of consideration to reduce the said amount from Rs. 9,983/- on the part of respondents-company.
18. The plea of the respondents-company that there was an agreement between the parties is not convincing for want of consideration in deduction of the said amount, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the lesser amount unpaid to him i.e. Rs.5,508/- as the claimant from the very beginning is denying any settlement reached between the parties.
7 Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019)
19. Thus, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the respondents-company.
20. The judgments relied upon by the respondents- company are not helpful in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
21. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and order of learned District Consumer Forum, Shimla in Complaint No. 239/2016 is set aside. Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,508/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization of the amount. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation.
22. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Commission below for information. Certified copy of order be sent to parties as per rules. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. F.A.No.230/2019 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member 05.05.2022 R.K.Verma *ss* Member 8 Smt. Shanti Chauhan Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.230/2019) 9