FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAKESH MEHTA
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2012-3-3
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 20,2012

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited Appellant
VERSUS
RAKESH MEHTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS order shall dispose of the aforementioned First Appeal No. 292 of 2011, titled as M/s. Future Generali India Insurance company Ltd. v. Rakesh Mehta, filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties and the Cross objections/ First Cross Appeal No. 359 of 2011, titled as M/s.Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.,v. Rakesh Mehta, filed by the cross objector/respondent/complainant (appellant in Cross appeal and respondent in First Appeal No. 292 of 2011), against the order dated 7.9.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants, in first appeal No.292 of 2011 and respondents in Cross Appeal No. 359 of 2011), as under:
"Hence, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to consider the report of Sh. Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and accordingly decide the claim of the complainant for the damaged vehicle as per his assessment at Annexure P -1. Payment be made to the complainant accordingly. This assessment be made and payment be released to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay the assessed amount along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.

The OPs will also pay Rs. 50,000 to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service and harassment caused to the complainant by taking the plea of non -appointment of a competent Surveyor by taking the plea of non -authorization, and thereby not settling the claim, as also for not adhering to the Guidelines of I.R.D.A. for Protection of Policy Holder's Interest.

The OPs will further pay Rs. 7,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant".

(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant was the owner of a Toyota Qualis Vehicle, which he had purchased for using the same, as a Taxi, for earning his livelihood, by way of self employment. The said vehicle was duly insured with the Opposite Parties, for the period from 21.10.2009 to 20.10.2010. The Insured declared value of the Vehicle was Rs.3,06,000. The vehicle met with an accident on 18.2.2010. DDR (Annexure C -3), was got registered with the concerned Police Station, and necessary information was given to Opposite Party No. 1. As per the advice of Opposite Party No. 1, the complainant, handed over the vehicle, to the authorized workshop i.e. Global Automobile (infact Globe Automobiles) Pvt. Ltd., Mohali. M/s. Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, examined the vehicle and prepared an estimate of Rs. 7,51,053, towards repair of the vehicle. A Surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties, for inspection of the vehicle, who assessed the damage/payable amount, to the tune of Rs.1,64,088.85. The complainant, thus, visited the office of the Opposite Parties, a number of times, to seek clarification, as to why, such a huge amounthad been deducted from his claim, as there was a marked difference in the estimate quoted by M/s. Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., and the report of the Surveyor appointed by them (Opposite Parties). However, the Opposite Parties did not consider his request. The complainant even served a legal notice dated 21.5.2010, upon the Opposite Parties, to settle his claim, as he was unemployed because of the accident of the vehicle, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 7,51,053 along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of accident, besides Rs. 30,000 per month towards parking/garage charges, as claimed by M/s. Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mohali, Rs. 25,000 on account of transportation, mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses and Rs. 30,000 per month as damages for loss of business was filed
(3.)THE Opposite Parties, in their written version, pleaded that the complaint was liable to be dismissed, being pre -mature. It was stated that the complainant did not give his consent for proper Survey of the vehicle, though a number of letters were written to him. It was further stated that after receipt of intimation of damage to the vehicle the Opposite Parties got the loss assessed, by appointing Engineer Ajay Kanwar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who submitted his Interim Motor Survey Report, dated 7.3.2010 along with details of assessment (Annexure R -5). It was further stated that the estimate of loss to the vehicle was assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,64,088.85. It was further stated that after investigation by Sh. Ajay Kanwar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, the complainant was required to get the vehicle repaired. It was further stated that the amount payable, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and as assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor aforesaid, would have been paid to the complainant after the repair of the vehicle. It was denied that the Opposite Parties were liable to pay Rs. 7,51,053 along with interest and the amount towards any consequential loss caused to the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, it was denied that the loss assessed by Mr. Ajay Kanwar, Surveyor/Loss Assessor, appointed by the Opposite Parties, to the tune of Rs.1,64,088.85 was correct. The remaining averments contained in the written version were denied, being wrong.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.