State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harendra Singh vs B.M.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. on 10 August, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/360
Instituted on : 24.05.2017
Harendra Singh, S/o Late Baburaja Singh, Aged 60 years,
Address : Khursipar, Labour Colony,
Kabir Mandir Ward No.35,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellant (Complainant)
Vs.
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Address : Tara Complex, G.E. Road,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ......Respondent (O.P.)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Miss Meenal Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant (complainant).
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the respondent (O.P.).
ORDER
DATED : 10/08/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.03.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.C.C./2016/341. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the main business of the complainant, is transport work and his family depends on the said business. In the year 2014, for his business work, the complainant purchased heavy vehicle goods trailer of the Tata Company // 2 // bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9805 The O.P. (Insurance Company) got insured the vehicle for the year 2014-15 and thereafter again the vehicle was got insured on 27.08.2015 under insurance policy No.27030031153106078330 which is valid upto 26.08.2016. According to the Goods Carrier Vehicle Public Insurance Policy the vehicle was got insured for Rs.21,00,000/- for which premium of Rs.34,486/- were regularly paid in the year 2014-15 and 2015-16. The said vehicle is insured with O.P. No.1(Insurance Company) and the premium amount was paid to the O.P. No.1 (Insurance Company), therefore, the complainant is consumer and O.P. No.1 (Insurance Company is service provider. On 13.11.2015, the vehicle in question along with goods was turtled in turning near Kurarvedia Valley, Hyderabad, which come under border of Maharashtra State. Due to turtle, the vehicle was damaged. The son of the complainant Avinash Singh informed his local mechanic through telephone regarding the accident, then the mechanic suggested him that if the vehicle met with accident in other State, then it will proper to inform the Insurance Company through telephone. The son of the complainant Avinash Singh contacted the Insurance Company through its toll free No. and informed that his truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-C-9805 met with an accident near border of Maharashtra State and none had died or injured in the accident, only vehicle was damaged, then the O.P. No.1 (Insurance Company) sent Surveyor Arjindra Singh Bhatia on 14.11.2015. The Surveyor came to spot and inspected the vehicle. The Surveyor found that in the accident, only the vehicle was completely damaged and the vehicle was required to be taken through another // 3 // vehicle. The complainant brought the damaged vehicle through Sarpal Toe Crane Services. The son of the complainant was advised not to give intimation regarding the incident to the concerned Police Station. As no person had died or injured in the accident and he did not want to involve in the police proceedings and he was prohibited to lodge report, therefore, the son of the complainant did not lodge report. The vehicle was brought to Bhilai through tochan. The O.P. No.1 (Insurance Company) sent M.S. Bagga for inspection of the vehicle, then he again conducted inspection and advised the complainant to get repair the vehicle and the Insurance Company will pay the entire expenses and entire claim amount after making proper deduction. On 28.01.2016, the complainant contacted the office of the O.P. (Insurance Company) and informed regarding the expenses incurred and he also shown some bills, then the O.P. No.1 (Insurance Company) informed pucca bills in respect of the entire expenses is given, then after making proper valuation, the O.P. No.1 (Insurance Company) will pay the claim amount. The complainant obtained pucca bills from where the parts of the vehicle was repaired. The complainant again went to the office of the Insurance Company and submitted above bills. The Manager of the Insurance Company assured the complainant that after inspection of the bills, the claim amount would be given to the complainant. On 09.02.2016 the Insurance Company informed the complainant through telephone regarding the amount that the cost of repairing is equal to half of the cost of the vehicle. The repairing cost of the vehicle is Rs.5,47,938/- whereas the sanctioned amount which was // 4 // informed by the Insurance Company was Rs.2,70,000/- only. On 12.03.2016, the complainant along with his son came to office of the Insurance Company and met with Manager and informed regarding the above situation. It was clearly informed that after occurrence of the accident, period of 8 months has been lapsed, but the Insurance Company did not pay the insurance amount, whereas general public got done insurance so that in the adverse situation he can obtain benefit but after the accident, the complainant and his family spent their entire savings on the repairing of the vehicle, even then the Insurance Company did not pay any amount till date to the complainant. Due to accident occurred, the complainant is not able to do any work. The family of the complainant is depend on transport work and due to non-payment of the insurance amount, the complainant is not able to pay the installments, therefore, the Bank is saying to seize the vehicle, due to which the complainant and his family members are suffering financial loss and mental agony. After listening above facts Ajit Kumar, Mukesh Mishra, who is Manger of United India Insurance Company, Power House, Bhilai, misbehaved with the complainant and his son. The son of the complainant lodged report regarding the above incident with Police Station, Chawni, on 12.03.2016. On 15.03.2016, the Insurance Company contacted the complainant through telephone and informed the complainant to obtain Settlement Intimation Voucher according to which the Insurance Company compelled the complainant to received Rs.2,70,000/- towards settlement amount. Hence, // 5 // the complainant has filed the instant complaint and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. No.1 filed its written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant against the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 averred that when it received the information that truck body of damaged trailer bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9805 was brought to Bhilai, then the O.P. No.1 (Insurance Company) appointed Ravinder Bagga, who is Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly authorised by the I.R.D.A. to assess the loss and to submit report. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ravinder Bagga inspected the damaged vehicle of the complainant and on the basis of minutely investigating the bills provided by the complainant, prepared report and handed over the report to the O.P. No.1 in which assessment was made to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- after deducting Depreciation, Salvage and Excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 15.03.2016 gave intimation to the complainant regarding sanctioning claim amount. For making payment of sanctioned claim amount through NEFT, the O.P. No.1 demanded duly filled settlement intimation voucher, bank details and copy of Pan Card, but the complainant refused to take the registered letter and returned the same. Then, the O.P. No.1 gave information through telephone to the complainant regarding the sanction amount, even then the complainant did not take interest and the complainant did not provide bank details and did not submit other documents, therefore, the amount // 6 // could not be paid to the complainant. In the claim form, the complainant wrongly mentioned the name of driver and in the invoice of the goods loaded in the trailer, there is difference in the name of driver. The complainant gave explanation in this regard and also submitted affidavit very belatedly, therefore, time was taken in settlement of the claim. The Insurance Company did not deliberately took time to settle the claim of the complainant. The O.P. No.1 is a Public Insurance Company which is providing services to the consumers as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy and it is bound to work under the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. The complainant and his son came to the office of the Insurance Company abused the Branch Manager and other staff. The son of the complainant lodged false report in Police Station, Chawni to pressurize the O.P. No.1. The complainant had received claim amount twice earlier. When the complainant refused to accept the registered letter sent by the O.P. No.1 regarding sanctioning of the claim amount, then, the O.P. No.1 gave intimation to the complainant regarding sanctioning claim amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and by providing voucher requested to give bank details so that the sanctioned amount can be paid to the complainant through NEFT. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ravinder Bagga is a Surveyor duly licenced from I.T.DA. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the vehicle according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and insurance rules independently. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor did not commit any professional misconduct. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service or // 7 // unfair trade practice. The assessment of loss to the vehicle of the complainant was got done by the Insurance Company through independent Surveyor and on the basis of his report, the Insurance Company, gave consent to pay the assessed amount. Besides, it the O.P. No.1 is not liable to pay any other amount. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.16,00,000/- or any other amount from the O.P. No.1. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable because the reliefs sought, is of civil nature. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Initially, the complainant made party M.S. Bagga as O.P. No.2 and written statement was filed by M.S. Bagga. Subsequently, Ravinder Bagga was made party instead of M.S. Bagga. In the written statement filed by M.S. Bagga, he denied the allegations made by the complainant against him. In the written statement it is mentioned that the O.P. No.2 has been made party on the basis of false information. In para 5 of the complaint, the complainant averred that the O.P. No.1 sent the O.P. No.2 M.S. Bagga for inspection of damaged vehicle, which is completely false. The actual fact is that the United India Insurance Company Limited sent Surveyor Ravinder Bagga for inspection of the vehicle. Ravinder Bagga is doing work of Surveyor and Loss Assessor and not M.S.Bagga. M.S. Bagga, Surveyor is father of Ravinder Bagga. M.S. Bagga has been unnecessarily made party in the complaint. O.P.No.1 did not sent O.P. No.2 M.S. Bagga for inspection of the vehicle. M.S. Bagga, is not doing work of Surveyor. The son of the O.P. No.2 is doing work of Surveyor. The O.P. No.1 sent the // 8 // son of O.P. No.2 for inspection of the vehicle. The O.P. No.2 is not conducting survey, therefore, no question arises to commit unfair trade practice. After conducting inspection, Ravinder Bagga submitted Survey Report to the O.P. No.1, in which he assessed to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- The son of the O.P. No.2 namely Ravinder Bagga assessed the loss on the basis of actual loss and he had not assessed total loss. The son of O.P. No.2 Ravinder Bagga did not did not commit any act which comes in the category of professional misconduct and he did not obtain any charges and did not provide any services. The son of O.P. No.2, Ravinder Bagga conducted survey on the instructions of the O.P. No.1 and Survey Report has been submitted to the O.P. No.1 for which fees has been paid by the O.P. No.1 to him. In these circumstances, the son of O.P. No.2, Ravinder Bagga did not commit any act which comes in the category of deficiency in service. On the basis of preliminary objection raised by the O.P. No.2, his name be deleted.
5. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A-1 is Cash Memo dated 26.11.2015 issued by Sarpal Cranes, Annexure A-2 is Receipt issued by Arjinder Singh Bhatia, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Annexure A-3 is Cash Memo dated 20.01.2016 issued by Mama Ropar Motor Repairing Works, Annexure A-4 is bill No.20.01.2016 issued by Vishwakarma Kamani Workshop, Annexure A-5 is Cash / Credit Memo dated 20.01.2016 issued by Pandit Engineering, Annexure A-7 is bill dated 20.01.2016 issued by Sharma Auto Electricals, Annexure A-7 is bill dated // 9 // 20.01.2016 issued by Sharma Motor Garage, Annexure A-8 is Cash / Credit dated 20.01.2016 issued by Sharma Engineering Works, Annexure A-9 is bill dated 20.01.2016 issued by Pradeep Dainter, Annexure A-10 is Cash / Credit Memo dated 20.01.2016 issued by Prem Power Steering, Annexure A-11 is Cash / Credit Memo dated 02.01.2016 issued by Globe Battery, Annexure A-12 is bill dated 20.01.2016 issued by Uttam Radiator Service, Annexure A-13 is Cash Memo dated 20.01.2016 issued by Janta Diesel Engineering Works, annexure A-14 is bill dated 20.01.2016 issued by Shiv Engineering Works, Annexure A-15 is bill dated 20.01.2016 issued by R.J. Motors, Annexure A-16 is bill dated 14.12.2015 issued by Abbi Tyres, Annexure A-7 is bill dated 11.12.2015 issued by Abbi Tyres, Annexure A-18 is Cash Memo dated 21.01.2016 issued by M/s Shva Spare & Dealers, Annexure A-19 is Cash Memo dated 21.01.2016 issued by M/s Shiva Spare and Dealers, Annexure A-20 is bill dated 21.01.2016 issued by Bihar Truck Body, Annexure A-21 to A-26 are photographs of the damaged truck, Annexure A-27 is Report U/s 155 Cr.P.C. from Chawani Police Station, Annexure A-28 is Settlement Intimation Voucher, Annexure A-29 is GCV Public Carrier Other Than 3 Wheeler Package Policy, Annexure A-30 is Registration Certificate Details of Vehicle bearing Registration No.C.G.07- CA9805, Annexure A-30(a) is Certificate of Fitness of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9805, Annexure A-30(b) is Controlled Pollution Certificate, Annexure A-30(c) is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9805, Annexure A-30(d) is driving licence, Annexure A-30(e) is Authorisation Certificate issued by R.T.O. // 10 // Raipur, Annexure A-30(f) is National Permit for Goods Vehicle, Annexure A-30(g) is Cash Receipt Cum Invoice Under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules 2002, Annexure A-30(h) is E-Receipt, Annexure A-30(g) is Vehicle Details in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9805, Annexure A- 31 is Aadhaar Card of the complainant.
6. The O.P. No.1 has filed documents. Annexure NA-1-01 is Motor Final Survey Report 08.02.2016 of Ravinder Bagga, Annexure NA-1-02 is letter dated 15.03.2016 sent by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Settlement Intimation Voucher, Annexure NA-1-03 is enveloped which was returned back, Annexure NA-1-04 is letter dated 19.02.2016 sent by United India Insurance Company Limited, Annexure NA-1-05 is affidavit of the complainant dated 09.03.2016.
7. The O.P. No.2 has not filed any documents.
8. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint.
9. Miss Meenal Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle Heavy Goods Trailer bearing registration No.C.G.07- C.A./9805 and it was insured with the respondent (O.P. No.1) for the period from 27.08.2015 to 26.08.2016. The said vehicle met with an accident on 13.11.2015. The intimation regarding the accident was given to the respondent (O.P. No.1) in toll free number. The respondent (O.P. No.1) sent // 11 // Surveyor Arjinder Singh on 14.11.2015, who inspected the vehicle in question on spot. On vehicle was damaged and none had died or injured. The vehicle was taken to service station for repairing through toeing. The appellant (complainant) incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.5,47,938/- in repairing of the vehicle against which the Surveyor appointed by the respondent (O.P. No.1) has only assessed loss to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-. The respondent (O.P.No.1) sent intimation regarding the same to the appellant (complainant) and forced him to receive the above amount. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.21,00,000/-. The vehicle was badly damaged, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is entitled for getting Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation as well as compensation for mental agony, but learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant) without going through the documents filed by the appellant (complainant). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
10. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P. No.1) has argued that Ravinder Bagga was appointed by the respondent (O.P. No.1) as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-. The report of the Surveyor is a reliable evidence. The respondent (O.P. No.1) is ready to pay the above amount to the appellant (complainant), but the appellant (complainant) instead of taking the above amount, has filed the instant consumer complaint, without any basis.
// 12 // Before the District Forum, Ravinder Bagga was made party as O.P. No.2, but in the appeal, the appellant (complainant) has not made Ravinder Bagga as respondent No.2, therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this count. The learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity, hence the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on Appeal No.FA/2016/559 - Jitendra Kumar Vaishnav Vs. The Divisional Manager, decided by this Commission vide order dated 17.01.2017 and Appeal No.FA/2017/39 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Shyam Kumar Parashar, decided by this Commission vide order dated 24.04.2017.
11. We have heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have perused the record of the District Forum, as well as the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
12. It is admitted fact that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle Heavy Goods Trailer bearing registration No.C.G.-07-CA- 9805 and it was insured with the respondent (O.P. No.1) for the period from 27.08.2015 to 26.08.2016. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 13.11.2015.
13. The respondent (O.P. No.1) pleaded that Ravinder Bagga, who is authorised Surveyor & Loss Assessor, by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (I.R.D.A.) has assessed the loss and submitted his // 13 // report to the respondent (O.P. No.1). The Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- and the respondent (O.P.No.1) sent intimation regarding the same to the appellant (complainant) and also demanded for settlement voucher and bank details, but the appellant (complainant) refused to provide same, therefore, the respondent (O.P. No.1) did not commit any deficiency in service.
14. In Devendra Malhotra Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2016 (3) CLT 525 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 (1) (g), 19 & 21 (a) (ii)- Insurance claim Surveyor report Held It is a established legal proposition that the report made by the surveyor, who is a professional in his field, cannot disbelieved, unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so."
15. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pavan Enterprises & Anr. I (2016) CPJ 503 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"12. I see no reason to discard the report of the Surveyor. He appears to be a guideless witness. No motive was ever attributed to him. There must be some reasonable ground or doubt to reject his report. The report of the Surveyor carries infinite significance as was held in Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (SLT Soft) 1 = 2014 (CPJ Soft) 1 = (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 and in D.N. Badoni v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC)."
16. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pave Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (3) CPR 577 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed // 14 // that "Loss of assessment by approved Surveyor can be discarded only on cogent reasons".
17. In Garg Acrylics Ltd., Through Sh. Anish Bansal G.M. (G.M.) Authorised Representative vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 (1) CPR 273 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11.................. This is settled Law that the report of the surveyor is to be given much more weightage than any other piece of evidence. See the Law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 & in D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC)".
18. In The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Regional Manager vs. Ishwar Singh, 2015 (1) CPR 157 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"17. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the Apex Court Judgment in the case Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507 wherein the Apex Court has held as under :-
"There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them".
19. In the instant case, Ravinder Bagga, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-. The report of the Surveyor, is a reliable document, therefore, the Surveyor's Report is genuine and // 15 // dependable. The report of the Surveyor should be given due weightage and it should not be discarded lightly.
20. Therefore, the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation from the respondent (O.P. No.1). It was the duty of the learned District Forum to direct the respondent (O.P. No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as assessed by the Surveyor, to the appellant (complainant), but learned District Forum dismissed the complainant, whereas the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get Rs.2,70,000/- towards compensation from the respondent (O.P. No.1.
21. The respondent (O.P. No.1) is ready to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- to the appellant (complainant), but the appellant (complainant) himself refused to accept the above amount, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any interest and compensation for mental agony, he is only entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards compensation from the respondent (O.P. No.1), but if the respondent (O.P. No.1) fails to pay the above amount to the appellant (complainant) within stipulated period, as directed by this Commission, then the respondent (O.P. No.1), will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the respondent (O.P. No.1).
22. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant), is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 21.03.2017, is set aside. It is directed that the respondent (O.P. No.1), will pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand) to the appellant (complainant) // 16 // within a period of one month from the date of this order. If the respondent (O.P. No.1) fails to pay the above amount to the appellant (complainant) stipulated period, then the respondent (O.P. No.1), will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.2,70,000/- from 12.04.2016 which is the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. Parties shall bear their own cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
10 /08/2017 10/08/2017 10 /08/2017