State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurcharan Singh S/O Harbans Singh vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 29 September, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 281 of 2009
Date of institution: 06.03.2009
Date of decision : 29.09.2009
Gurcharan Singh s/o Harbans Singh s/o Gurdial Singh r/o Raikot Road, Opp. Free
Eye Hospital, Barnala, Distt. Barnala.
.....Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional manager, College Road,
Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 24.04.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Aminder Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.R.C.Gupta, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Gurcharan Singh appellant was the owner of Tata Truck - 4012 bearing registration No.PB13-Q-8805 which was insured with the respondents for the period from 23.07.2006 to 22.07.2007. The said truck met with an accident near Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda on 02.12.2006 when it was being driven by Gurjant Singh driver. The truck was badly damaged in the accident. The information was given to the respondents. The respondents had deputed the Surveyor and Chander Shekhar was appointed for final survey. The vehicle was taken to the authorised workshop of the respondents who submitted the bill for an amount of Rs.4,87,177/-. However, the respondents had sent the cheque dated 25.07.2007 only for an amount of Rs.95,250/- without assigning any reasons. The appellant had no alternative but to accept the cheque under protest. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed the First Appeal No.281 of 2009 2 complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum") claiming insurance amount of Rs.3,92,000/- over and above the amount already paid. Interest and costs were also prayed.
2. The respondents filed the written statement. It was not disputed that the appellant was the owner of Tata Truck - 4012 bearing registration No.PB13- Q-8805 and it was insured with the respondents for the period from 23.07.2006 to 22.07.2007. It was also not disputed that the truck had met with an accident on 02.12.2006 and the respondents had appointed the Surveyor. It was also admitted that the respondents had given the cheque dated 25.07.2007 to the appellant for an amount of Rs.95,250/- but it was in full and final settlement of his claim. It was denied if the appellant was entitled to Rs.4,87,177/- as alleged by him. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3. The appellant proved documents Ex.C/1 to Ex.C/8. The appellant also filed his affidavit Ex.C/9. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company filed the affidavit of S.K.Sofat, Divisional Manager as Ex.R/1 and the affidavit of Chander Shekhar, Surveyor as Ex.R/2. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R/3 to Ex.R/6.
4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.04.2008.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident which took place on 02.12.2006 and Rs.4,87,177/- were required for the repair. Hence, the appellant was entitled to an amount of Rs.3,92,000/- over and above the amount already paid. It was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2008 be set aside.
First Appeal No.281 of 2009 3
7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
9. The admitted facts are that Gurcharan Singh appellant was the owner of Tata truck - 4012 bearing registration No.PB13-Q-8805 and it was insured with the respondents for the period from 23.07.2006 to 22.07.2007 for an amount of Rs.14,25,000/-. The insurance policy has been proved as Ex.C/5.
10. It is also admitted between the parties that the vehicle met with an accident on 02.12.2006 and the truck was badly damaged in this accident. For that purpose, the appellant has proved the report of the Fire Station Officer, Rampura Phul dated 20.03.2007 Ex.C/1, according to which, the truck had caught fire. The fire brigade PJB 6870 had reached the spot and it took three hours to extinguish the fire. This, therefore, reveals that the insured truck was badly damaged in the fire incident.
11. So far as the repair value of the truck to the tune of Rs.4,87,177/- is concerned, the appellant has placed on the file estimates issued by Khalsa Agri. Works and Kissan Motors/Tata Motors dated 04.12.2006 as Ex.C/2 and Ex.C/3 to the tune of Rs.2,30,400/- plus Rs.2,56,777/- respectively. However, these are only estimates. The appellant has not produced on the file any document to show if he had spent this amount on getting the vehicle repaired.
12. On the other hand, the respondents have also produced on the file the report of Chander Shekhar, Assessor dated 27.01.2007 Ex.R/5. As per this report, the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-. Chander Shekhar, Surveyor had also filed his affidavit Ex.R/2. In this affidavit also, he disclosed that the admissible claim was Rs.1,25,000/-. 25% was deducted by sub-standard basis and the amount of Rs.95,250/- was paid to the complainant. It is also deposed in the affidavit that the appellant had given his consent letter without any type of pressure and with his free sweet will. The appellant had signed the consent letter. First Appeal No.281 of 2009 4
13. The consent letter referred to by Chander shekhar Surveyor in his affidavit Ex.R/2 has not been placed on the file. Moreover, since the claim was assessed by him to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-, he has not given any reason why the amount should be decreased from this amount of Rs.1,25,000/- particularly when all kinds of deductions were made. Rather the loss assessor had recommended the payment of another amount of Rs.2500/- as towing charges. It is, therefore, held that the appellant was entitled to the amount of Rs.1,27,500/-.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the cheque of Rs.95,250/- dated 25.07.2007 was not given to the appellant. Rather it was deposited in the bank. He filed the complaint for the insurance claim on 01.10.2007 i.e. merely after the expiry of about two months. Therefore, any consent given by the appellant while accepting the amount of Rs.95,250/- cannot be made binding on him particularly when the respondents have not given any reason for not making the payment of Rs.1,27,500/- as assessed by the Surveyor.
15. This appeal is accordingly partly accepted and the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.32,250/- (Rs.1,27,500 - 95250 already paid). The respondents are also held entitled to pay interest @ 7.5% on this amount to the appellant from 25.07.2007 till the date of payment. The appellant is also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
16. The arguments were heard in this case on 23.09.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER September 29, 2009.
Paritosh