MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-
Complainant has filed the C.C.Case seeking balance settlement amount of Rs. 1,05,742/- for the damage of vehicle with @12% and compensation of Rs. 4,68,800/-.
Brief fact of the case is that Complainant in order to maintain his livelihood purchased Bharat Benz Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-29E-1310, Chasis No. MEC2246CLHP052155, Engine No. 400952D0052121 from Sundaram Finance by paying EMI of Rs. 85,000/- per month. The vehicle was insured vide Policy No. 345106/31/2020/5723 covering from dt. 15.12.19 to 14.12.20. During currency of Policy vehicle met with an accident on dt. 3.9.2020 at about 5.30 A.M. The fact regarding accident was duly informed in Ghatgaon Police Station vide Station Diary Entry No. 043 dt. 5.9.20. The Complainant also intimated the fact regarding accident to the Ops, who deputed surveyor for inspection and thereafter Complainant brought his damaged vehicle with assistance of another vehicle to the authorized service centre of Bharat Benz i.e, Shree Bhart Motors Ltd., Chandikhole. The Complainant submitted the expenditure slip on dt. 7.8.2020. But there was delay in settling the claim for which the Complainant requested on 18.09.20 to the Ops for advance payment for repairing of the vehicle by the authorized service centre. But the Ops did not respond and delayed the settlement deliberately for more than 3 months for which Complainant sustained financial loss.
Ops Insurance have filed their written version stating that “ the averments made in para 7 is false frivolous and denied by this Opp.party and Complainant is put up to strict proof there in. It is false to say complainant bear loss of i.e EMI of vehicle of Rs. 70,000/- salary of driver Rs. 16,000/- and salary of helper Rs. 6,000/-. It is also false to say that actual expenses was Rs. 5,45,742/- and it is also false to say that another Rs. 84,800/- was spend towards repairing of vehicle. The averments made in para 13,14, & 15 is false frivolous and imaginary and denied by this Opp. Party. It is false to say that Complainant by running post from pillar frequently to the office of the Opp.party and spent Rs. 30,000/-.It is also false to say for wrong act of Opp. Complainant suffer mental agony, It is also false to say OpNo.1 & 2 are liable to pay salary of driver Rs. 48,000/- and helper Rs. 18,000/- for three month. It is also false to say the insured vehicle was carried by the other vehicle for which Complainant spend Rs. 8,000/- and it is also false to say that Op has illegally reduced the amount from actual bill of Rs. 1,05,742/-. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. An act of repudiation of a claim after considering all the material and the relevant facts can by no stretch be termed as “ deficiency in service” on the part of the opponent. The question as to what specific acts of an insurance Company would amount to deficiency of service by the Insurance Company when the limits of an inquiry into facts and evidence akin to that of a civil court commerce. It is respectfully submitted that there is no body of Indian law on the point and the only pronouncement of law by the Honbl’e Supreme Court on the test to be applied is found in the Judgement of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vrs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) I SCC 66 where the Honbl’e Supreme Court laid down that the test of deficiency in service lay in the Complainant proving that there was some fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the manner of the Insurance Company and further such fault etc must be willful. More importantly the Honbl’e Supreme Court has held that where there is a bonafide dispute between parties and where the service provider has after considering all the material with them and the relevant facts has acted in a particular manner, then such acts will not amount to deficiency in service. Thus, as there is no “ deficiency in service” on the part of this respondent, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the count alone. The Honbl’e National CDR Commission has followed the said law on number of occasions.
The Ops further submitted that, the claim has been settled on dt. 24.11.2020 by paying Rs. 4,40,000/-. The Complainant claims that in addition to the above said amount he has paid Rs. 1,05,742/- on dt. 4.12.2020 to the authorized service centre. But the details of charge on which head the same has been paid that has not been explained in the complaint petition except stating the balance payment in Para-14 of the complaint petition which in our considered opinion should be borned by the Ops, which has been paid by the Complainant on dt. 4.12.20.
Settlement of claim and payment made within 3 months is not deficiency in service as in normal course some time is required to settle the claim and both parties are silent on the time stipulation to be followed in settlement of claim for which we are not inclined to award any compensation as claimed by the Complainant.
The Ops are directed to pay Rs. 1,05,742/- with @6% simple interest from dt. 4.12.20 to till date of payment. We also award Rs. 2000/- towards cost of this litigation. All the above exercise shall be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order by the Ops, failing which the Ops shall be liable for execution proceeding under the C.P.Act, 2019.
With the above observations the C.C.Case No. 6/2021 is allowed and accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced the Open Commission on this the 4th July, 2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
