Punjab

Sangrur

CC/628/2016

Jagdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajinder Sharma

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                
                        Complaint No.    628
                        Instituted on:    24.10.2016
                        Decided on:    09.03.2017

Jagdeep Singh son of Amarjit Singh, resident of near 66 KV Electric Grid, Dirba, Distt. Sangrur.
                            …Complainant
                Versus
1.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through its M.D. Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110 017.
2.Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Kaula Park, Hot Chop Hotel, Sangrur 148 001.
 
                            ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant    :    Shri Rajinder Sharma, Adv.
For O.Ps             :    Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
        Sarita Garg, Member
        Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.        Shri Jagdeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OPs by getting insured his Maruti Swift VDI car bearing registration number HR-05-Y-4646 from OP number 2 for the period from 9.9.2015 to 8.9.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.16,767/- for the IDV of the car as Rs.4.10 Lac.   It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the car in question met with an accident on 1.9.2016 near village Samuran, of which DDR number 12 dated 2.9.2016 was recorded in PS Dirba and intimation was also given to the Ops.  OP number 2 appointed surveyor, namely, SPJ Singh of Patiala and on whose instructions the vehicle was shifted to Hira Autos, Patran and as per the estimate the vehicle was totally damaged and beyond any repairs.  It is further averred that the surveyor was pressuring the complainant to get the claim settled at Rs.2,50,000/- against the IDV of Rs.4,10,000/-, whereas the complainant is entitled to get the insured amount, which was not paid despite serving of legal notice upon the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.4,10,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
 
2.        In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint 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 with the OPs under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle met with an accident, intimation of which was given by the complainant to the Ops and as such the Ops immediately appointed Shri SPJ Singh, surveyor and loss assessor. However, it has been denied that the surveyor gave any instructions to shift the vehicle to Hira Autos, Patran. The surveyor after inspecting the vehicle in question recommended the claim for Rs.3,05,000/- after deduction of Rs.95,000/- as salvage value and deduction of Rs.1000/- of excess clause and as such the claim is under process for the same.  The complainant also submitted acceptance letter for Rs.3,05,000/- on stamp paper of Rs.100/- duly attested by the notary public.  As such, it is stated that the complaint is premature which should be dismissed with special costs.

3.         The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-2 copy of general diary detail, Ex.C-3 copy of request letter, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12 copies of letters and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 copy of affidavit, Ex.Ops/2 copy of indemnity bond, Ex.Ops/3 copy of final survey report and Ex.Ops/4 affidavit 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 OPs for Rs.4,10,000/- for the period from 09.09.2015 to 08.09.2016 as is evident from the copy of insurance policy on record as Ex.C-1.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 1.9.2016, intimation of which was given to the OPs, as such after receipt of the intimation the OPs immediately appointed surveyor, who submitted his report  Ex.Ops/3 to the Ops, whereby he assessed the payable amount to the tune of Rs.3,05,000/- after deduction of the salvage value as well as excess clause, which amount was also accepted by the complainant, as is evident from the acceptance made on a non judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- on 26.10.2016, whereby he accepted and undertook to accept a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- against the claim of the car in question.  We may mention that the complainant is a clever man, who filed the present complaint on 24.10.2016 and later on settled the claim with the Ops by giving an affidavit to the Ops settling the claim at Rs.3,05,000/-.  The complainant has even concealed this material fact in his affidavit Ex.C-12. But, the fact is there the complainant has sold the salvage of the vehicle for Rs.95,000/- and the same amount he has received at his own.  In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- as per the survey report Ex.Ops/3.

6.        In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.10.2016 till realisation in full.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

7.        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.
        March 9, 2017.
                            (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
                                    President

                                                   
                                (Sarita Garg)
                                        Member

 

                            (Vinod Kumar Gulati)
                                    Member