State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Paramjeet Kaur on 10 June, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1241 of 2011
Date of institution : 18.08.2011
Date of decision : 10.06.2014
The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.36-37, Sector
17-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party
Versus
Paramjeet Kaur w/o Paramjeet Singh, resident of Village Banhauri,
Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
30.6.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri V. Ramswaroop, Advocate. For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 30.6.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Paramjeet Kaur, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay to the complainant Rs.57,775/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 16.10.2010 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses and to take back cheque dated 16.12.2010 First Appeal No.1241 of 2011. 2 Ex.C10 illegally sent by it to Sundaram Finance Ltd. instead of sending the same to the complainant.
2. The complainant alleged in her complaint that she purchased one truck make Tata-2515 for Rs.13,75,000/-, vide invoice dated 7.8.2010, after getting the same financed from M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd., Sangrur and got the same registered with the Registering Authority, Sangrur, vide No.PB-13-X-9297. She got the same comprehensively insured with opposite party No.1, vide cover note dated 9.8.2010 by paying Rs.27,648/- as premium and the I.D.V. was given as Rs.15,67,500/-. The period of insurance was from 9.8.2010 to 8.8.2011. On 16.10.2010 this truck was booked for transportation of goods from Village Killa Hakima to Tarn Taran. Accordingly Gurcharan Singh, Driver, took the truck to that Village and when he was taking the goods in the same to Tarn Taran, it met with an accident and overturned. In the accident the truck was badly damaged and intimation was immediately given to opposite party No.1, who deputed Mr. Kohli as Surveyor. That Surveyor visited the spot and prepared the rough estimate of the loss caused to the truck. She was asked to take the truck for repairs and to intimate opposite party No.1 after getting the same repaired for final survey. The truck was shifted to Sahnewal, Ludhiana, by towing the same, in respect of which she incurred expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The truck was got shifted to Vishwarakrma Body Makers, to whom a sum of Rs.70,775/- was paid, vide Bill No.437 dated 8.11.2010 on account of body parts, cabin, repairs and labour charges. The same was got painted from Davinder, Painter, to whom an amount of Rs.7,500/- First Appeal No.1241 of 2011. 3 was paid, vide Bill No.20 dated 8.11.2010. Opposite party No.1 was duly informed about the repairs of the truck and the payment of those amounts. The original bills were taken by the Surveyor of that opposite party, who gave assurance that her claim would be settled within 10/15 days. She visited the office of opposite party No.1 a number of times to enquire about the status of her claim and then she got the intimation that cheque No.078549 dated 16.12.2010 for Rs.32,025/-, as payment of her claim, had been sent to M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. She refused to accept that amount for the settlement of claim as the same was much less than the actual amount spent by her. She also challenged the act of opposite party No.1 in sending the cheque to the Finance Company instead of handing over the same to her. All these acts and conduct of the opposite parties amount to gross-deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice; as a result of which she suffered lot of mental tension, pain, agony, harassment and financial loss and for the same she claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,500/- as litigation expenses. She prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party, besides the direction to pay Rs.78,275/- on account of the expenses incurred on repairs etc. and Rs.5,000/- as towing charges, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. The opposite parties filed joint written reply, in which they admitted that the complainant had purchased the truck after getting the same financed from Sundaram Finance and got the same insured with opposite party No.1 for Rs.15,67,500/-. They also First Appeal No.1241 of 2011. 4 admitted that intimation regarding the accident was given to them upon which Manjit Singh Kohli was appointed as Surveyor, who submitted his report dated 22.10.2010 and that Harish Kumar Laroiya, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, made the final survey and that the cheque of Rs.32,025/-, including Rs.2,500/- as the towing charges, as assessed by that Surveyor, was sent to the Finance Company. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that Harish Kumar Laroiya had personally examined the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.32,025/-, which included the towing charges and he submitted his report dated 13.11.2010. It was only after examining the entire record that the cheque of that amount was sent to the Finance Company, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, as the amount for purchasing the truck was provided by that Finance Company. They never indulged in any such act and conduct which might amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as no one appeared on behalf of the complainant. We have also carefully gone through the records of the District Forum.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the best evidence before the District Forum was the report of the First Appeal No.1241 of 2011. 5 Surveyor, which is a detailed and reasoned one. No evidence was produced by the complainant in order to show that there were discrepancies in that report or that contradictory facts were stated therein. In these circumstances the claim was to be allowed on the basis of that report. The District Forum committed an illegality by ignoring that report and assessing the amount of claim on its own, which is without any basis and is not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
7. In support of the allegations made in the complaint the complainant proved on record here affidavit Ex.C-1. In that affidavit she specifically deposed that she had shifted the truck to M/s Vishwakarma Body Makers, Sahnewal (Ludhiana) where the same was repaired and for those repairs, she paid Rs.70,775/-, vide Bill No.437 dated 8.11.2010 and that amount was on account of the body parts, cabin, repair and labour charges. She also deposed that she paid Rs.7,500/- to Davinder, Painter, vide Bill No.20 dated 8.11.2010. She proved those bills on record as Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-7, respectively. She has also deposed in her affidavit that the original bills were given to the Surveyor so appointed by the opposite party.
8. The report of that Surveyor was proved by the opposite party as Ex.R-6. The affidavit of the Surveyor was never proved on the record for proving that report. In that report he assessed the amount payable to the complainant as Rs.32,025/- while taking the estimated amount as Rs.75,000/-. The deposition of the complainant that she had submitted the original bills to the Surveyor has remained First Appeal No.1241 of 2011. 6 unrebutted. In that eventuality the estimated amount was to be taken as Rs.70,775/- + Rs.7500/- = Rs.78,275/-. In the bill Ex.C-8, the labour charges for repairs of body and cabin are mentioned as Rs.23,000/-. A perusal of the Annexure to the report of the Surveyor makes it very much clear that he had assessed the labour charges at that amount. For fabrication of the cabin he assessed the value of the material at Rs.4325/- and for the body fabrication the same was assessed at Rs.3,700/-. The report of the Surveyor, who conducted the spot survey was proved on the record as Ex.R-4. The following was the list of damages observed by him:-
"1. Cabin pressed from right side, inner sunmica cracked and cabin shacken;
2. Load angles both sides bend;
3. Wooden Batta broken;
4. Chassis both long members bend;
5. Front axle, Rear tube and dead axle to be checked."
As per this report, there was possibility of more damage, which might not have been visible. Keeping in view the extent of that damage it cannot be held that the material used for repairs was only of the value of Rs.4325/-+Rs.3700=Rs.8,025/-.
9. It is well settled law that the report of the Surveyor is not the final word. One may point out the discrepancy therein and point out the contradictions so as to show that the same is unreliable. The District Forum for the reasons disclosed in the impugned order and on the basis of various judgments on the point came to the correct First Appeal No.1241 of 2011. 7 conclusion that this report of the Surveyor was not reliable and could not have been made the basis for assessing the loss caused to the truck. It assessed the loss at Rs.57,775/- and that assessment has not been challenged by the complainant by filing any appeal nor she came present at the time of arguments. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the District Forum and there is no ground for upsetting the same.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
11. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant/opposite party.
12. The arguments in this case were heard on 5.6.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) June 10, 2014 MEMBER Bansal First Appeal No.1241 of 2011. 8