M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 109-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager

Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

1. Ankit Puri S/o Dinesh Puri, #2184, Sector 41-C,Chandigarh.

Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Ravinder Kumar Goyal, Surveyors & Loss Assessors, #332, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.                          

 “10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly allowed and Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

i) to pay the amount of Rs.63,500/- (minus

ii) to payRs.15,000/- as compensation for

iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of11.      This order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payments besides payments of litigation costs”.

2.                            The facts, in brief, are that Dinesh Puri (deceased), owner of Santro Car, bearing Registration No.CH03-C-6784, got insured the same, from Opposite Party No.1, for the insured declared value of Rs.64,000/-, for the period from 28.09.2011 to 27.09.2012, vide Annexure C-1. On 04.05.2012, during the currency of the Policy, the said car met with an accident, regarding which F.I.R. No.139 dated 05.05.2012 was got registered. The father of the complainant suffered serious injuries, in the accident, as a result whereof, he (father of the complainant) died on 17.07.2012. Opposite Party No.1 was duly informed, about the accident immediately, vide Annexures C-2 and C-3.

3.                           After getting the vehicle released on supardari, it was taken to M/s Sony Motors,Chandigarh, which gave the rough estimate (Annexure C-4). Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 appointed Opposite Party No.2, as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who, vide his report dated 18.10.2012 (Annexure C-6), settled the claim at Rs.31,800/- only, which according to the complainant, was totally arbitrary and against the Insurance Law. Even, after the receipt of report, of the Surveyor, Opposite Party No.1, failed to settle the claim of the complainant, on total loss basis, as the vehicle, in question, was completely damaged, in the accident. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of Opposite Party No.1, 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), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to pay him a sum of Rs.64,000/- being the “insured declared value” towards the accident claim, on total loss basis, alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 04.05.2012 till the date of payment; Rs.20,000/- as   compensation agony and physical harassment; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties; and Rs.22,000/- as litigation costs.

4.                           Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, admitted that the vehicle, in question, which was in the name of Dinesh Puri (deceased) father of the complainant, was insured with it, for the insured declared value of Rs.64,000/- for the period from 28.09.2011 to 27.09.2012. The accident of vehicle was also admitted. It was stated that intimation with regard to the said accident, was given to Opposite Party No.1, immediately, as also the F.I.R. was lodged in the Police Station. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 had approved the claim of the complainant, to the tune of Rs.63,500/- It was further stated that intimation of the claim was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 28.06.2013 (Annexure R-1), asking to complete certain formalities, as mentioned therein. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, or it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.                           Vide order dated 30.08.2013, the name of Opposite Party No.2, was ordered be deleted, from the array of the parties, by the District Forum, in view of the statement, made by the Counsel for the complainant.

6.                            The complainant and Opposite Party No.1 led evidence, in support of their case.

7.                          

8.                         

9.                          

10.                         The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that the Surveyor was appointed by Opposite Party No.1, who assessed the loss of the tune of Rs.31,800/-, whereas, on the other hand, the complainant was

11.                       

12.                         The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, at the time of inspection, parts to the tune of Rs.15,000/- were found missing from the vehicle or not. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellant placed reliance, on the report dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure R-2) of Kiran Kumar Surveyor, in support of his contention, yet it may be stated here, that the same (report) is not at all reliable for the reason, that there is nothing, on record, that the salvage of the vehicle was inspected in the presence of the complainant. Not only this, the report, (Annexure R-2) of the surveyor, was not supported by any affidavit. It appears that Opposite Party No.1, woke up from its sleep, after approving the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.63,500/- , and alleged that certain parts to the tune of Rs.15,000/- were found missing at the time of inspection of the vehicle. On the basis of letter Annexure R-1 dated 28.06.2013, sent by Opposite Party No.1, to the complainant, the latter handed over the possession of the vehicle to M/s Manpreet Associates, Kaimbwala Road, Kansal on 07.08.2013, in the presence of Kiran Kumar Surveyor, which (vehicle) was inspected by the said Surveyor on 16.08.2013 vide inspection report Annexure R-2. Since the vehicle was lying at M/s Manpreet Associates,Kaimbwala Road, Kansal, what happened between 07.08.2013 and 16.08.2013, to the vehicle, or its salvage, was not known. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant was, in any way involved in the alleged theft of the parts, which were allegedly found missing, from the vehicle or its salvage. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant, in any way, admitted that there were missing parts to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. Even no price of the alleged missing parts, from the vehicle, was mentioned by the Surveyor in his report. It is not known as to, on the basis of which data or material, the Surveyor came to the conclusion that the alleged missing parts of the vehicle, were valued at Rs.15,000/-. Under these circumstances, Opposite Party No.1, was completely wrong in making deduction of Rs.15,000/-, from the claim of Rs.63,500/-, which was approved by it, and letter, in regard thereto, was sent to the complainant. This was again an act of deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1, was rightly held not entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.15,000/-, from the approved claim of Rs.63,500/-. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

13.                        The claim of the complainant, was not settled, for a period of more than 9 months, from the date of lodging the same, in violation of the provision of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) Regulations. One can really imagine plight of a person, like the complainant, whose father died, in the accident, and, on the other hand, his claim was not settled for a period of more than 9 months. A lot of mental agony, and physical harassment, was caused to the complainant, on account of the acts of omission and commission of Opposite Party No.1. The District Forum was, in our considered opinion, right in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant, was entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. The compensation awarded by the District Forum, to the complainant, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be unfair or excessive. On the other hand, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, could be set to be reasonable, adequate and fair

14.                       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

15.                       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The same is liable to be upheld.

16.       

17.       

18.       

Pronounced.

28^th                                                                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Gp