PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for both the parties heard. The Complainant, Sh. Bhagwan Mahavir College of Educdation owned a Verna car. The complainant took Insurance from the opposite party- the New India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 17.08.2009 to 16.08.2009. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 17.08.2009. The FIR was lodged. The Insurance Company was also informed. Mr. Nand Kumar Jha visited the spot and filed his report. Thereafter, loss assessor inspected the vehicle and gave the report that the loss in the sum of Rs. 2,62,160.50 was payable by the Insurance Company. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 4,66,845/- plus Rs. 5878/- to the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the accident took place on 17.08.2009. Till now no claim has been paid to the complainant. The District Forum gave the following directions:- “i) The respondent no. 2 is directed to hand over the salvage of vehicle no. HR10x/8489 to the complainant and after receipt of the same from respondent no. 2, the complainant will deposit the salvage of vehicle no. HR 10k/8489 with the respondent no. 1 insurance company. ii) The complainant is also directed to submit the NCB certificate with the respondent no. 1 insurance company. iii) The respondent no. 1 insurance company is further directed to make the total payment of Rs. 472723/- (Rs.4,66,845 plus Rs. 5878) in respect of the damaged vehicle no. HR10K/8489 and out of this amount, the respondent no. 1 insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,72,723/- to the respondent no. 2 and shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant. iv) The respondent no. 2 is also directed to hand over the vehicle i.e. Verna car no. HR10K/8499 to Shri Satbir Jain in working condition since the respondent no. 1 insurance company has been directed to make the balance amount of Rs. 2,72,723/- to respondent no. 2 as respondent no. 2 has already received Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant and this fact is also not disputed by the respondent no. 2. It is also directed to the respondent no. 2 not to recover any parking charges from the complainant. Further since the complainant has been able to prove that he hired the taxi and has paid an amount of Rs. 5,42,000/- we.f. 01.09.2009 to 01.01.2011 through cheques to M/s Suraj Travels, Geeta Bhawan, Sonepat. We have observed that the complainant has availed the services of private taxi only due to the deficient services rendered by the respondent no. 1 and thus, respondent no. 1 insurane company is liable and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant which he has incurred on hiring the taxi and this fact is duly proved from the affidavit of Bijender Singh. Further the respondent no. 1 insurance company is directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for unnecessary harassment and further to pay Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two thousands) on account of litigation expenses.” 2. Aggrieved by that order, the Insurance Company approached the State Commission. The State Commission too, dismissed the First Appeal. Both the fora above have given the concurrent findings. 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the claim could not be settled because the complainant/respondent had failed to comply with their letters dated 21.06.2010, 16.07.2010, 29.072010 and 26.08.2010. We have gone through the above said 4 letters. The complainant was asked to send the final bills, receipt bills and cash memos. It is difficult to fathom how these documents could have been sent, when the bill is yet to be paid finally and furnished to the respondent. The record goes to show that the respondent/complainant had produced the estimate which finds mention in the report prepared by the surveyor. Same is available on the record. Consequently, this frivolous objection should not have been taken. 4. Even if the respondent could not file the No Claim Bonus, the Insurance Company should have ignored it and settle the matter within 30 days of the accident as is required by Law. Inordinate delay was made because of the non- settlement of the amount. The stubborn and arrogant attitude adopted by the Insurance Company has caused a great loss to the complainant. 5. It is not understood why taxi charges were granted to the respondent/complainant. Maintenance of a private car itself entails a huge amount. You have to pay for the petrol, give the remuneration to the driver then there are service charges. Moreover, the taxi charges should not be granted to the complainant as it is abhorrent from the principles of jurisprudence. We see no flaw in the order passed by the Foras below except granting the taxi charges. So we hereby modify this order. We set aside the order regarding taxi charges. Rest of the order passed by the Foras below be complied with by the petitioner/respondent –Insurance Company within 30 days otherwise it will carry penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per day to which the complainant will be entitled to have. 5. The lackadaisical approach adopted by the petitioner for its own benefit has proved to be detrimental to the interests of the complainant. As the complainant was deprived of the vehicle for the last 4 years, for no fault of it, we also award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs for the harassment and mental agony to be paid to the respondent/complainant within 30 days otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 6. Order be given Dasti. | 
