Complainant Jaswant Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make payment of Rs.41,135/- less paid by the opposite party alongwith interest @ 12% p.a from the date of its due till realization alongwith amount of Rs.5,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.2000/- for litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Skoda Rapid Car on 9.06.2014 from M/s.Krishna Auto Sales, G.T.Road Bye Pass, opposite Ryan International School, New Amritsar having Engine No.CLN267770 Chassis no.10681. Later on the said car was registered with the Transport Department and registration no.PB-06-Z-3713 has been allotted for the said car and was got fully assured with the opposite parties on 9.6.2014 and insured declared value for the same was settled at Rs.8,39,135/- vide cover note no.74414835. He has next pleaded that unfortunately the abovesaid car met with an accident at village Rangeelpur on Rupnagar Kurali Road on 09.09.2014 an FIR in this regard was got registered at Police Station Singh Bhgwantpur District Rupnagar having FIR No.102 dated 9.9.2014 under section 279/427 IPC. The opposite parties settled his accidental car claim as total loss and paid Rs.7,98,000/- in total to him. Actually, at the time of accident the insured declared value was Rs.8,39,135/- because no depreciation was to be counted on the vehicle being three months old. The less payment made by the opposite parties was not permissible as per law and he is entitled to the further amount of Rs.41,135/- less paid by the opposite party on account of total loss of the car. He requested the opposite parties to make the remaining amount as per the insurance policy dated 9.6.2014 but all in vain. He has purchased the car after securing loan and was hypothecated by Punjab Gramin Bank Jail Road Gurdaspur against Account no.8460NG00051757 and the opposite party had transferred the amount of his claim in his account in Punjab Gramin Bank, Gurdaspur against the abovestated account number then he came to know that the opposite parties had paid the less amount than the sum assured amount of Rs.41,135/- Hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On merits, it was submitted that the amount has been duly paid as per terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant has been settled on net of salvage basis. The following deduction has been made. The compulsory deduction of Rs.2000/- has been made as per policy. Further less salvage value of Rs.3,25,000/- has been deducted and the amount of Rs.4,73,000/- has been paid. So the claim has been duly settled as per terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanket Gupta Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-11 along with other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We find that the prime dispute prompted (affidavit Ex.C1) at the complainant’s accident-claim’s partial repudiation by the OP insurers settling (Ex.C4) the claim at an arbitrary market car-value of Rs. 8.00 Lac whereas the insured accidented Car (Ex.C2) was duly insured (policy Ex.C3) for an admitted IDV (insurance declared value) of Rs.8,39,135/-, as purchased vide (Ex.C5) invoice dated 09.06.2014 for Rs.8,83,300/-.
7. We further concernedly find that the OP insurers have simply produced (in their defense) the ‘2’ nos. of survey scrutiny sheets (Ex.OP1 & Ex.OP2) and final survey report (Ex.OP3 & Ex.OP4) that have somehow finally assessed (Ex.OP5) the cost of replaceable parts (net of salvage) being insured value as: Rs 8.00 Lac and at the same time admitting an IDV of Rs.8,39,135/- although without assigning any ‘good’ reason for the same. Lastly, the OP Insurers have deposed (affidavit Ex.OP11) as their prime defense that the complainant had free-consentedly accepted the claim (Ex.OP10) settled @ Rs.4,73,000/- (Ex.OP8) as on net of salvage basis (value being Rs.3,25,000/-) vide stamped agreement (Ex.OP6) with the salvaged car (Ex.OP9) along with the claim amount duly credited (Ex.OP7) in his Bank A/c.
8. We find that the OP insurers’ produced defense document Ex.OP6 (complainant’s stamped consent) cannot be construed as having executed with free consent in the light of the complainant’s subservient status in his overwhelmed anxiety to expediently receive the so-settled claim amount and thus its tenacity is set-aside/overruled. We are unreservedly supported in our above ‘ruling’ by the IRDA (Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India vides its circular letter # 173 (Ex.C6) dated 24.09.2015 directing that ….. “… the insurers shall not to use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora”. And, that dyes the impugned partial settlement of the present claim into the ‘hue’ of ‘deficiency in service’ coupled with ‘unfair trade practice’ under the extant provisions of the applicable statute. To sum it up all, we find that the OP insurers have arbitrarily deducted the insurance claim in question and have since failed to produce any cogent evidence to support the alleged grounds/basis of deduction of Rs.41,135/ -and in its absence these shall amount to ‘bald’ statements, only. Thus, the OP insurers’ impugned settlement of the insurance claim does not entail legality under the applicable law and need be set-aside.
9. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the balance of the insurance accident claim (i.e.Rs.41,135/-) to its full IDV to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation (for the harassment inflicted) and Rs.2,000/- as cost (of litigation) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actual payment.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
September, 16, 2016 Member.
*MK*
