National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Manjit Singh & 2 Ors. on 23 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2443 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/04/2015 in Appeal No. 21/2012 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, MANAGER,NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. R/O I LAVEL 4,TOWER-II JEEVAN BHARATI,124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANJIT SINGH & 2 ORS. S/O LATE JAWANT SINGH BABBAR, R/O TRIMMU ROAD, NEAR BABBAR, HOSPITAL GURDASPUR PUNJAB 2. THE MANAGER VEHICLADES PVT. LTD. (AUTHORIZED MARUTI DEALER) OUTLET VILLAGE BABRI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT GURDASPUR PUNJAB 3. THE MANAGER PATHANKOT VEHICLEADES PVT. LTD. AUTHORIZED DEALERS FOR MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED, BEHIND A.B. COLLEGE PATHANKOT PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 23 May 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioner
:
Mr. Abhishek Gola, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1
:
Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd MAY 2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.04.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 21/2012, "Manjit Singh versus National Insurance Co. Ltd.", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 17.10.2011, passed by the District Forum Gurdaspur in consumer complaint No. 515/2010, filed by the present respondent No. 1, was modified.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased Maruti Swift VDI car bearing registration No. PB06L0190 on 01.01.2010 from respondent No. 2/opposite party (OP-3) Vehicleades Private Limited Gurdaspur and obtained an insurance policy for the same from the petitioner/OP National Insurance Co. Ltd. for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of ₹4,81,534/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 24.01.2010, while being driven by the father of the complainant, Jaswant Singh. An intimation about the accident was given to the insurance company who deputed a surveyor H.S. Bedi to conduct preliminary inspection of the vehicle and provide spot-survey report. Another surveyor M.L. Mehta and Co. was also appointed to conduct the final survey of the vehicle and for assessment of the loss due to accident. It is stated that the complainant took the vehicle to M/s. Alliance Auto Services and obtained a repair estimate dated 18.02.2010 for ₹5,60,653/- Thereafter, the vehicle was shifted to an authorised dealer M/s Pathankot Vehicleades Private Limited, respondent No. 3 for providing fresh estimate and conducting repairs. The said dealer provided estimate for repairs of ₹4,18,803.28ps. However, the surveyor M.L. Mehta & Co. made assessment of loss as ₹3,18,118.67ps. The consumer complaint has been filed by Manjit Singh complainant, alleging that the insurance company was not settling the claim intentionally, despite approaching them so many times. The complainant sought directions to the Insurance company to pay a sum of ₹4,81,553/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. or to hand over a new vehicle of same model and also to pay a penalty of ₹50,000/- to him.
3. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was payable on cashless basis, under which arrangement, the bill was directly payable to the repairers by the insurance company after deduction of depreciation on rubber parts etc. The Insurance Company stated that repair of the vehicle had been carried out under the supervision of the complainant/his representative and he should be asked to collect the vehicle from the dealer, where it was lying after repairs. The complainant should pay the depreciated value of the rubber parts directly to the dealer. The Insurance Company denied that the complainant was entitled to get a sum of ₹4,81,553/- with interest or any compensation as demanded by him in the complaint. A written statement was also filed by the dealer/repairer, in which they stated that the vehicle of the complainant had been completely repaired and was lying in their workshop, but the complainant never came to get the delivery of the same. They were entitled to recover the parking charges with effect from 01.02.2010 @₹100/- per day. Moreover, they were entitled to claim a sum of ₹5,00,933/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. with effect from 1.02.2010. The dealer had also sent a letter dated 24.03.2011 to the complainant, saying that the vehicle was ready for delivery since November 2010.
4. The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, decided the consumer complaint vide their order dated 17.10.2011 and directed the Insurance Company to make payment of ₹3,18,118.67 as cost of repairs as assessed by the surveyor M.L. Mehta & Associates and pay the said amount alongwith interest to the dealer/repairer directly. A sum of ₹5,000/- as compensation was also allowed to the complainant. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal and enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the complainant to ₹4,81,534/- on the basis of IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. It is against this order that the insurance company has filed the present revision petition.
5. During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company submitted that they had already made payment alongwith interest directly to the dealer in pursuance of the order passed by the District Forum. The Insurance Company had not filed any appeal against the order of the District Forum, implying thereby that they had accepted the said order. The learned counsel stated that the view taken by the State Commission was, however, erroneous because they had based their conclusion on the basis of photographs only and stated that it was a case of total loss. There were no reasons to disbelieve the report of the surveyor, in so far as the assessment of damage in the case was concerned.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1 stated that this was a case of total damage as indicated from the report of the sport surveyor H.S. Bedi. The complainant was not interested to get the vehicle back, as this was a case of total loss. The complainant should get due compensation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the IDV stated in the said policy.
7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission reveals that they have based their conclusion on the estimate given by M/s. Alliance Motors Service of ₹5,60,653/-, saying that since the estimate exceeds IDV of the vehicle as stated in the insurance policy, it was a case of total loss, as the damage to the vehicle was more than 75%. The complaint should, therefore, be given the IDV of the vehicle, i.e., a sum of ₹4,81,534/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. On the other hand, the District Forum stated that the surveyor M.L. Mehta and Co. were qualified mechanical engineers, and experts in the relevant field. They had given a well-reasoned, detailed report which was self-explanatory and there was no reason to disbelieve the said report in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
9. A perusal of the report submitted by the surveyor M.L. Mehta & Co. reveals that the said surveyor examined all the documents, including the estimates prepared by M/s. Alliance Auto Service for ₹5,60,653/- and also the estimate given by the repairers M/s. Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd.. They also examined the vehicle and took its photographs. The surveyor estimated the value of rubber parts as ₹1,63,243.97ps. and after making a deduction of 50% of rubber/plastic items, they have disallowed a sum of ₹81,621.98. In addition, the surveyor estimated the labour charges as ₹36,244.50ps. as against the estimate of ₹64,165/- given by the repairers. The net assessment made by the surveyor was given as ₹3,18,118.67ps., as against an estimate of ₹4,38,152.23ps.
10. We do not find any cogent or convincing reasons to disbelieve the said report of the surveyor. The conclusion arrived at by the State Commission is based on the estimate made by M/s. Alliance Auto Service. However, the District Forum have observed in their order that the said estimate was simply a quotation, indicating the price of the spare parts. It has not been stated in their estimate, as to which parts were damaged and needed the replacement; hence, the quotation/estimate given by them was meaningless. Under these circumstances we feel that the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission is erroneous in the eyes of law. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, ordered to be set aside. On the other hand, the order passed by the District Forum reflects a correct appreciation of the issues involved in the case and they rightly concluded that the insurance company should make payment as per the report given by the surveyor. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER