Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.679 of 2009 filed by respondent No.1/complainant was allowed in the following terms ; “ The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum since 15.7.2008 (one month after the report Ann.R-3 of the Surveyor) with Rs.5000/- as litigation costs till the payment is actually made to the complainant. The OPs would pay the parking charges to M/s Krishana Auto Sales at their own level and if they fail to pay the same within 30 days aforesaid they would pay Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant for the scrap, which thereafter would be OPs’ property. The value of the scrap as Rs.2.00 lacs has been mentioned by the Surveyor at Page No.5 of his report Ann.R-3. If the OPs pay Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant and get possession of the car, they are not likely to suffer any loss. In case the entire amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the OPs would pay penal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.5.2009 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The complainant would execute the documents in favour of the OP Insurance Company for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle after he receives the full payment. The OP’s may recover the amount of Rs.2.00 lakh or any other amount paid to the M/s Krishna Auto Sales along with interest and costs from the Branch Manager or such other employee(s) due to whose fault the payment of the compensation was delayed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant had taken a motor policy covering his Skoda car for the period ending 31.8.2008 for IDV Rs.9,00,000/- with OP No. 1 vide cover note Annexure C-1. Unfortunately, the said car met with an accident on 16.12.2007 and was totally damaged and was beyond repairs. He intimated the OP about the accident and submitted estimate of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.14,23,000/-. It was alleged that inspite of repeated personal visits, the OP remained mum and no action was taken for about 11 months on the lodging of the claim with them. Ultimately vide letter dated 11.11.2008, the claim of the Complainant was approved for Rs.3,74,000/- on cash loss basis. When he enquired and verified for the value of salvage from a Scrap Dealer concerned, it was disclosed that only Rs.1,00,000/- would be paid to him on account of the salvage; whereas, it was specifically told by OP no. 2 that he would get minimum of Rs.3.50 lacs from the salvage. The complainant immediately approached OP No. 2, but there was no response. Thereafter, he approached the Insurance Ombudsman, where too OP took the plea that they had recommended for settling the claim on cash loss basis which was consented to by the Complainant. The vehicle remained parked with M/s Krishna Auto Sales for which the Complainant would have to shell out Rs.2,00,000/- towards the parking charges, without there being any fault on his part, as the OPs failed to take prompt action with respect to the finalization of his claim . Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District. 4. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the estimated loss was highly exaggerated and the same was pointed out by the Surveyor. The Surveyor was appointed to promptly process the claim and it was found that certain parts were missing and the vehicle on the whole was tempered with. The Complainant was given a clear discretion to accept the claim on repair basis or on cash loss basis and he accepted it on cash loss basis. Since the vehicle was badly tempered with and the loss was reported at a belated stage and to cover up such a big lapse, the insured was trying to shift the blame with a view to cause wrongful loss to the insurer. The loss was approved in accordance with the set parameters being followed by the Insurer. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite party has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/OP is that consequential damages cannot be fastened upon the insurance company and an insurer is not liable to pay the liability for which it had not undertaken to indemnify. The claim was settled on the basis of consent given by the complainant on cash loss basis and whatever delay was there in releasing the payment that was on the part of complainant as he had delayed in submitting the discharge voucher. Further the salvage at this belated stage would carry no monetary value as it has been reduced to a piece of junk and its valuable parts are missing. However, these points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant who submitted that due to delay in settling the claim the parking charges accumulated for which insurer is liable to pay the same. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above points of arguments and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.9.00 lacs and it met with an accident on 16.12.2007. The OP insurance company took 11 months to approve the claim which was passed for Rs.3,73,744/- and communicated through letter dated 11.11.2008. Even this amount was not paid to the complainant. The insurance company has not produced any letter vide which the draft or cheque for this amount was sent to the complainant. The complainant had filed an application before the Ombudsman for enhancement, which also was disposed of on 12.2.2009. Even then no payment was made to the complainant and ultimately he had to file the complaint on 12.5.2009 before the District Forum and during the pendency of the complaint no payment was tendered by the OP. During all this period the vehicle remained parked at M/s Krishana Auto Sales for which they charged parking charges. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor in his report had mentioned the value of scarp as Rs.2.00 lacs. The learned District Forum directed OP to pay the agreed amount of Rs.3,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. The insurance company was also directed to pay parking charges of vehicle to M/s Krishna Auto Sales within 30 days and in case of default they would pay Rs.2.00 lacs as the cost of scrap. Thus, the said relief granted by the District Forum was within the scope of insurance policy under which insurance company was liable to indemnify the insured for the loss sustained by the vehicle due to accident which stood insured for Rs.9.00 lacs . 10. In view of the foregoing discussion , we are of the considered opinion that the Learned District Forum rightly appreciated all the aspects of the case and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.9.2009 passed by it which is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
