Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President and Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
GURTEJ SINGH BRAR - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Respondent
First Appeal No. 521 of 2015.(First Appeal against the order dated 25.03.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.)
Decided on : 14-12-2015
Sh. Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate, for the Appellant; Sh. G.D. Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1; Ex-parte, for the Respondents No. 2 and 3
The assessment of loss by the surveyor and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were crucial in determining the liability of the insurance company and repair workshop.
Headnote:
Insurance - Claim Settlement - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 1, Section 26 - The judgment discusses the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the assessment of loss by the surveyor, and the liability of the insurance company and repair workshop. The court affirmed the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's car was insured with a company and met with an accident. The repair workshop and the insurance company were involved in the repair and claim settlement process. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and sought various directions and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the findings of the District Forum, stating that the surveyor's assessment of the loss was correct and the complainant failed to provide evidence to support his claim of total loss of the vehicle. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the assessment of loss, liability of the insurance company and repair workshop, and the complainant's claim of deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the assessment of loss by the surveyor, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's claim of total loss of the vehicle. The court affirmed the findings of the District Forum.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him was allowed and OP No.1 was directed to settle and pay the claim to him on the basis of the surveyor report; besides the direction to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. OPs No.2&3 were directed to hand over the car bearing No.PB-30- E-5181 of the complainant against proper receipt and verification, subject to the payment of remaining repair charges; which he was liable to pay, after deducting the amount of Rs. 80,000/- which was paid in advance by him to OPs No.2&3. OPs No.2&3 were further directed not to charge any parking charges from him. The compliance of the order was ordered to be made within 30 days of receipt of copy thereof.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Gurtej Singh Brar, complainant, was owner of car Model 2008 Fiat Stile SL bearing registration No.PB30E-5181 and the same was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period 15.10.2010 to 14.10.2011. He brought his car in the workshop of OP No.2 on 01.09.2011 for repairs. OP No.2 called him to get the delivery of the car on 24.12.2011 and by that time, the above said insurance policy had expired. Before getting back the car, he paid a sum of Rs. 1,29,232/- to OP No.2 against repairs bill. OP No.2 allured and insisted him to get the insurance policy from OP No.1, as it had arrangement with OP No.1 and that it will be cashless policy, which will cover bumper to bumper. OP No.1 issued the certificate cum policy No.25331031116120061019 for the period 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012 to him. On 26.12.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., the said car met with an accident, in this regard DDR No.4 dated 31.12.2011 was lodged at Police Station Lakhewali, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. An information regarding the accident was given to OP No.1 on 27.12.2011. The surveyor of OP No.1 conducted the spot survey and clicked the photographs of the accidental car. On the direction of OPs No.1&2, on 02.01.2012 the accidental car was brought to OP No.3 for repairs by towing it by another vehicle, after spending Rs. 3,000/-. He deposited Rs. 80,000/-, vide receipt No. 8455/- dated 01.09.2012 and receipt No.7279 dated 07.05.2012, as advance payment on the demand of OP No.3 on the pretext, that after claiming from OP No.1, the said amount would be adjusted and told him that within one month, they would deliver the duly repaired car to him. OP No.1 appointed the surveyor and OP No.3 prepared the estimated bill. He immediately submitted all the required documents as demanded by the OPs. Thereafter, he time and again, visited the workshop of OP No.3 with a request to deliver the car after repairs, but on 17.10.2012, OP No.3 shifted the car to OP No.2 on the pretext that being major repairs, it was not possible at Moga workshop. The car remained in accidental condition i.e. without repairs in the workshop of OP No.3 for more than ten months. OP No.3 prepared an estimate for the repair of the car for a value, which was more than market value of the car, as assessed at the time of the issuance of the insurance policy by OP No.1 i.e. Rs. 2,80,000/-. They again assured him that after the due repairs, OP No.1 would bear the expenses of repairs and they would deliver the car to him very soon. The investigator - Sh. Prem Singh wrote letter dated 03.05.2013 to him and demanded documents as mentioned in the letter. He immediately went to the office of the said investigator and answered all the questions to his satisfaction. It was alleged that he time and again visited the workshop of OP No.2 and office of OP No. 1 with a request to deliver the car and settle the claim, but it was delayed on one pretext
