Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/437/2010

Bhagwan Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2011

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 437 of 2010
1. Bhagwan Dassson of Sh. Parsu Ram, R/o House No. 1162 Sector-43/B, Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd.SCO No. 36-37 Ground Floor sector-17/A, Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 17 Jan 2011
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                       

Consumer Complaint No

:

437 of 2010

Date of Institution

:

19.07.2010

Date of Decision   

:

17.01.2011

Bhagwan Dass son of Sh. Parsu Ram, resident of House No.1162, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.36-37, Ground Floor, Sector 17/A, Chandigarh.

..…Opposite Party

 

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh. Sanjay Nagpal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Puneet Sharma, Adv. for OP

                    

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             Briefly stated, the complainant was the owner of a Ford Fiesta car, which had been insured with the OP for the period 14.1.2009 to 13.1.2010. The IDV had been fixed at Rs.5,96,020/- and the complainant had paid a premium of Rs.15,993/- to the OP. 

              Unfortunately, the car was stolen from the residence of the complainant on 6.12.2009. An FIR was lodged with the police station for the theft and the OP were informed accordingly. The OP while settling the claim of the complainant made a payment of Rs.5,21,350/- against a demand of Rs.5,96,020/- which was the IDV of the car.  The complainant thereafter served a legal notice on the OP demanding the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- which according to him had been illegally retained by the OP.  Since the amount was not received within time, he has filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service.

  1.        The OP in their written reply have submitted that when the claim was filed with them they paid Rs.5,21,350/- after making calculations of the amount due. As per their calculation the year of manufacture of the cart was 2007 and hence IDV was calculated after deduction of 30% from the date of manufacture. However, later on it was found that the car was sold to the complainant in January 2008, hence actually only deduction of  20% should have been made. When this error was detected the OP had already started the procedure of paying he balance amount. The relevant portion of the letter dated 27.4.2010 is as under :-

“………While calculating/fixing the IDV at the time of settlement of claim a small error has crept in. The IDV is reduced to 30% instead of 20% presuming that first insurance had also commenced in 2007.

The insured has accepted the amount of Rs.521350/- against the IDV of Rs.596020/- and now sent us the legal notice for release of balance amount. On scrutiny of record the above error has come to our notice. We may get sanction the additional amount of Rs.74,170/- from the competent authority and till then write to the insured Advocate that matter is under consideration by the competent authority & we shall revert to him soon.”

The amount thus due to the complainant, which came to Rs.74,170/-, was thereafter sent to him through letter dated 20.8.2010.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

  1.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
  2.        We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 
  3.        The ld. counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments admitted that the amount payable had been received from the OP. However, his contention was that the amount was only released after the filing of the present complaint.  The OP in their written statement have already explained the reasons for the delay in releasing the amount of Rs.74,170/- which are also clear from their internal communication dated 27.4.2010 (Annexure R-5) already reproduced above.
  4.        In view of above, it is clear that less payment was made to the complainant only due to an error of judgment which was later on rectified by the OP.  Hence, we do not find that the OP have indulged in any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the present situation. The complaint thus needs to be dismissed.
  5.        In view of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

 

17th  January, 2011

Sd/-

[Madhu Mutneja]

 

Sd/-

[Rajinder Singh Gill]

hg

Member

 

Presiding Member


, MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER ,