DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 270
Instituted on: 07.06.2017
Decided on: 05.09.2017
Randhir Singh son of Udham Singh c/o Parmanand Basti, Sunam, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Hot Chop, Kaula Park Market, Sangrur through its Branch Manater.
….Opposite party.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTY : Shri Darshan Gupta Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Randhir Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he got insured his truck insured from the OP for the period from 26.09.2015 to 25.09.2016 by paying premium amount of Rs.33768/- and the IDV of the truck is Rs.16 Lacs. On 6.3.2016 the truck was hit by oil tanker no. WB-71-A-2477 due to which the truck caught fire and was badly damaged for which FIR no.145/16 dated 24.04.2016 was registered. An intimation of the accident was given to the OP and claim was submitted after giving all the requisite documents but the claim of the complainant has not been paid. The truck is still standing in District Burdwan ( WB) i.e. place of occurrence. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OP be directed to pay Rs.16Lacs alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till realization ,
ii) OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OP be directed to pay Rs.33000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OP, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, non-joinder, locus standi and suppression of material facts have been taken up. On merits, Insurance of the truck is admitted. The complainant gave information about the accident of truck to toll free number of the company and immediately surveyor and loss assessor was appointed for assessing the loss . The salvage of vehicle was lifted by the salvage buyer with the consent of the insured/ complainant and the financier. The demand draft has been handed over to the complainant. The own damage claim is under process. The complainant as well as the financier is aware of the claim settlement. Thus there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
3. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence.
4. The complainant's truck bearing number PB-13-X-9171 was insured vide policy number 94206273 for the period from 26.09.2015 to 25.09.2016 with the Op and he paid Rs.33,768/- as premium. So, he is a consumer of the OP.
5. It is an admitted case that said vehicle met with an accident on 6.3.2016 and intimation of the same was immediately given to the OP who appointed surveyor. The complainant has stated that the OP has not paid the claim till date i.e. 07.06.2017 when he filed the complaint. The OP has stated that complaint is premature and claim is under process and the same has not been repudiated till the filing of the written reply on 20.07.2017. The OP has produced evidence which shows that they had paid Rs.14,13,500/- . They also produced copy of emails Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 showing that the claim was settled and released in favour of the financier. The claim was released in the account of the financier on 28.08.2017 when the last opportunity for producing the evidence to the OP was given by the Forum for 01.09.2017 . Learned counsel for the OP has stated that the complainant has also given the consent letter for the settlement of the claim, so the claim was settled and paid. So, now the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that in the written reply filed by the OP there is no mention of consent of settlement of the amount and claim was paid on 28.08.2017 when the claim was lodged in March 2016, as such OP has taken almost 17 months to pay the claim. So, OP is deficient to pay the claim.
6. We have gone through the entire record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that although the claim has been paid by the OP to the financier and the complainant is also not disputing the amount of the claim but as per guidelines of the IRDA the claim must be decided within two months from lodging of the claim. It is not disputed by the OP that the claim was not lodged in March 2016. There is no letter issued by the Op on the file which shows the complainant has failed to provide any document which caused delay in deciding the claim. So, we are of the opinion that a large amount of Rs.14,13,500/- has been paid after seventeen months from the lodging of the claim and the complainant was unnecessarily paying the interest to the financier. So, we are of the opinion that the OP should pay interest on the claim amount.
7. In view of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay interest @9% on the claim amount after three months from lodging the claim i.e. from 01.07.2016 to 23.08.2017 because they have unnecessarily without any reason delayed the payment of claim amount. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental pain agony and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
September 5, 2017
(Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member President
