Punjab

Sangrur

CC/248/2016

Sukhwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sukhwinder Singh

12 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  248

                                                Instituted on:    03.02.2016

                                                Decided on:       12.09.2016

 

Sukhwant Singh son of Shri Sukhdev Singh, resident of Ward No.3, Near Law Foundation School, Kishanpura Basti, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

United India Insurance Company, Sangrur, Nar Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Adv.

For Opp.party          :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sukhwant Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by getting insured his car bearing registration number PB-13-AF-3109 from the OP for Rs.4,95,000/- for the period from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016 vide cover note number 405833 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.12,700/-. It is further averred that the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 25.09.2015 within the jurisdiction of PS Shahabad (Haryana) and damaged badly.  It is further averred that after the accident the complainant immediately intimated the OP about the total loss of the car in the question and the Op appointed surveyor for assessing the loss. It is further averred that the surveyor of the OP directed the complainant to shift the car in question to Raj Vehicles Sangrur, as such the car was shifted to Raj Vehicles with the help of crane and M/s. Raj Vehicles prepared the estimate of the car in question to the tune of Rs.7,22,225/- and consequently the vehicle was declared totally damaged by the surveyor of the OP.  The complainant approached the Op so many times for payment of the claim amount of Rs.4,95,000/-, but all in vain despite serving of legal notice dated 14.1.2016. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Op, the complainant has prayed that the Op be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.4,95,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is pre mature, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not impleaded the proper parties and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.4,95,000/- with the OP under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle met with an accident, but no intimation was given by the complainant to the OP.  However, it has been admitted that the OP appointed the surveyor for spot investigation and to assess the loss of the vehicle.  It is further stated that after issue of the legal notice the complainant visited the Op and the complainant was advised that on receipt of the complete report, the payment will be released to the complainant as per norms of the law.  It is stated further that the case of the complainant is under process and the result will be conveyed to the complainant on the decision of the case. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 copy of estimate of damage, Ex.C-4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-5 postal receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Uma Dhir, Ex.Op-2 affidavit of surveyor, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-5 copies of letters, Ex.OP-6 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-9copies of letters, Ex.OP-10 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-11 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-12 copy of postal receipt and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question with the OP for Rs.4,95,000/- for the period from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016 as is evident from the copy of cover note on record as Ex.C-2.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 25.09.2015, intimation of which was given to the OP, as such after receipt of the intimation the OP immediately appointed surveyor, who submitted his report dated 16.03.2016, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,14,000/-.

 

6.             It is proved on record that the insured car of the complainant met with an accident on 25.09.2015, wherein the car in question damaged badly and suffered heavy loss.  In this regard, the stand of the complainant is that the surveyor of the OP assessed the car on total loss basis, as such, full insurance claim was payable, whereas the surveyor of the surveyor assessed the loss payable to the complainant at Rs.4,14,000/- as is evident from the copy of survey report dated 16.3.2016.  

 

7.             In the present case, a bare perusal of para 3 (viii) of the reply of complaint shows that after issue of the legal notice, the complainant visited the office of the OP and the complainant was advised that on receipt of the complete report the payment will be released to the complainant as per norms of the law and further stated that his case is under process and the result will be conveyed to the complainant on the decision of the case.  We may mention that the reply of the complaint is dated 4.4.2016 which has been filed on 7.4.2016, whereas M/s. Eminent Surveyors submitted the report dated 16.3.2016, which was even received in the office of the OP on 18.3.2016, as is evident from the survey report on record as Ex.OP-6.  But, we failed to understand that what kind of  complete report was waiting the OP from the surveyor and why they did not decide the claim of the complainant, more so when the report along with the documents had already been received by the OP on 18.3.2016 in its office. If it is assumed that the complainant did not cooperate the surveyor and did not submit the documents to the surveyor till 18.1.2016, then what action was taken by the OP even after 18.3.2016 (date of receipt of the survey report) to decide the claim of the complainant.  There is no explanation from the side of the Op that why they did not settle the claim even after filing of the present complaint and the OP is simply writing in the reply of the complaint in para 3(viii) “that the payment will be released to the complainant as per norms of the law. His case is under process and the result will be conveyed to the complainant on the decision of the case.”  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the OP and are of the considered opinion that the OP sit over the file unnecessarily without any reason and further has miserably failed to settle the claim of the complainant for such a long time without any specific reason.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant submitted the service quotation of the vehicle at the first instance on 25.7.2013 to the OP, which is on record as Ex.C-3 and further Ex.C-4 is the copy of legal notice served upon the OP  for making the due payment of the claim, but all in vain.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

8.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The vehicle in question is insured for Rs.4,95,000/- for the period from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016, but the surveyor has assessed the loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,14,000/- as is evident from the copy of survey report Ex.OP-6. As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to pay to the complainant the amount as per the survey report i.e. Rs.4,14,000/-.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 03.02.2016 till realisation.  We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

 

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 12, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member