DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 310 of 2.11.2007 Decided on : 9.6.2008 <br /> <br /> Gurminder Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, HN 3031-A, Guru Nanak Sector, Dr. K.K Nohria Street, Bathinda ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Office 303, 3rd Floor, Novelty Plaza, Bhaiwala Chowk, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.<br /> 2.Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.,SCO No.118 to 120, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.<br /> 3.M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2nd Floor, No. 2, N.S.C Bose Road, Chennai-600 001 through its Managing Director.<br /> 4.M/s. Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd., Bibiwala Road, Near DAV College, Bathinda through its Managing Director.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. S.M Goyal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties: Sh. Ashok Bharti,counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3<br /> Sh. Maninder Singh,authorised representative of opposite party No.4 in person <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Opposite party No. 3 is an Insurance Company and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are its Regional & Zonal offices respectively to supervise, administer, control and look after its business. Opposite party No.4 is the dealer/seller of different vehicles and is having its office, workshop and showroom at Bathinda. Complainant had purchased one Innova car from opposite party No. 4 at Bathinda for his personal use and necessity vide bill No.B20060000061 dated 13.3.2007 for consideration of Rs. 7,45,189.88 with the financial assistance/loan of ICICI Bank Limited, Bathinda. Delivery of the vehicle was given by opposite party no. 4 at Bathinda. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 had allured the complainant by representing that they were rendering services to their customers at the earliest possible opportunity and that they provide cashless policy having arrangement with dealers of Toyota cars. Opposite insurance company used to pay some commission to opposite party No. 4 for selling their insurance policies. Previously, complainant was purchasing insurance polices from some other companies. Believing the tall claims of opposite parties No. 1 to 3, he got his above mentioned Innova car make Toyota, Engine No. 9836329, Chassis No. 7076327, Model 2007, bearing registration No. PB-03Q-1320 comprehensively insured vide cover note No. 5006717 for the period 13.3.2007 to 12.3.2008 from opposite parties No. 1 to 3 through authorised agent i.e. opposite party No. 4 by way of paying a total premium amount of Rs.24,589/-. Actual price of the vehicle when it was purchased was Rs.7,45,189.88 but its value was wrongly mentioned in the cover note of insurance as Rs.7,07,931/-. He had spent about Rs.35,000/- on accessories got fitted in it. In this manner, the total price of the car at the time of purchase comes to Rs.7,80,189.88. Insurance company had assured that in case of any mishap or accident, it would process, settle, disburse, pay and indemnify all losses/damages to the insured within ten days from the date of accident. On 20.4.2007, this car had met with an accident with Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR-57-1386 of Sirsa Depot near village Machhana, Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda in which three persons including the driver had died. Car was being used by his (complainant's) friend. It was totally damaged. Criminal case with FIR No.38 dated 21.4.2007 under sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 & 327 IPC was registered in Police Station, Sangat against the driver of the Bus as accident had taken place due to his rash and negligent driving of the Bus. Information of the accident was given to the opposite insurance company through opposite party No.4. Surveyor for spot inspection was appointed by opposite party No.1. Original insurance policy has not been delivered to him till date. Accidental car is lying in Police Station Sangat. It has already been inspected by the Surveyor and Investigator so appointed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal Investigator had contacted him. All the documents required by him which included copy of the registration certificate of the car and the driving licence of driver Achhar Singh @ Jabbar Singh issued by DTO, Bathinda, copy of the post mortem report of driver, invoice of the car and copy of the insurance cover note were delivered to him. Investigator had obtained his signatures on some blank printed forms by saying that he would arrange the payment of the claim within a week. Till date, no payment has been made. Car was purchased by him for his personal use. As he requires car, he has to arrange hired vehicle of and on. Legal notice dated 22.5.2007 was issued and reply dated 3.8.2007 was received from the insurance company through its counsel which has tried to evade its liability. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 were bound to get the loss surveyed from their Surveyor. Despite this, they asked him to get the vehicle released on Sapurdari by way of moving application to the Illaka Magistrate and then to take the same through truck or Tralla all the way from Police Station Sangat to Ludhiana workshop of the insurance company's authorised dealer and to deliver the same to them for assessment of the loss. He asked them to get the vehicle surveyed in Police Station Sangat and get the loss assessed, but to no effect. Letter dated 28.5.2007 was received from Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bansal Surveyor & Loss Assessor whereby he informed that spot/preliminary survey was carried out by him on 5.5.2007 at Police Station Sangat. He demanded detailed estimate of loss and claim form duly filled in although no copy of the claim form was supplied to him. Opposite insurance company appointed some person from Ludhiana to prepare the estimate of loss and he was demanding Rs. 5,000/- as fee from him and also asked him to get the delivery of the car from the police on Sapurdari and transport the same from Sangat to Ludhiana. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were informed vide letter dated 12.6.2007 and request was made to them to get the estimate prepared and loss assessed of their own and at their own cost. Claim form alongwith letter dated 12.6.2007 was also submitted. They were further informed that he is ready and willing to give authority to them to take the vehicle anywhere they want to take. Opposite party No. 2 again sent letter dated 29.6.2007 despached through registered post on 6.7.2007. Another letter dated 2.7.2007 was received from Mr. Dinesh Kumar Goyal Surveyor & Loss Assessor through which he had demanded detailed estimate of loss and claim form. Reply of this letter was sent vide letter dated 10.7.2007 informing that claim form was already submitted vide letter dated 12.6.2007. Copy of the claim form already submitted was also sent. Seeing that opposite insurance company was not interested to get the loss assessed and estimate prepared, he got prepared the estimate of loss from M/s. Chadha Super Cars (P)Ltd., Ludhiana which assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,08,138/-. Copy of the estimate was sent to the insurance company. Opposite insurance company was requested many a times to pay him the claim, but to no effect. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,14,138.88 plus interest on the loan amount to be paid by him to the bank and interest thereon @ 18% P.A from the date of accident till payment, Rs.2,000/- incurred for expenses of towing the vehicle from the place of accident to Police Station Sangat, besides costs. <br /> 2. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed reply to the complaint stating that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; insured vehicle was being used in violation of the limitations as to use clause; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and complicated questions of fact are involved for which detailed evidence is required and as such, this Forum cannot decide this complaint in summary procedure. They admit that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are the regional & zonal offices of opposite party No.3. Policy terms and conditions were explained to the complainant and thereafter he had purchased insurance policy. Accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of Haryana Roadways Bus as is clear from the First Information Report registered in Police Station Sangat. Complainant did not submit the required documents like claim form for processing the claim. He did not take steps to get the insured vehicle released on Sapurdari which is essential for inspection of the vehicle and assessment of the loss. Their plea is that complainant should have given direct information of the accident instead of through the agent. If he did not receive the original policy, he ought to have informed them. Car is still lying in the Police Station. Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal was appointed as Investigator. They deny that he had obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank papers. Complainant did not intimate the accident well in time. Complainant was intimated by them through their Surveyor Mr. Dinesh Kumar Goyal through letter dated 2.7.2007 to comply with the formalities. Till date, he has failed to do so. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. Opposite party No. 4 filed separate reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as no cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. Car was purchased from Ludhiana. Temporary Registration Certificate number was issued from Ludhiana. Vehicle was insured at Ludhiana. Mere fact that it has its branch at Bathinda would not confer territorial jurisdiction for filing the complaint at Bathinda; ICICI Bank Ltd. being financier is necessary party; it has been illegally dragged into litigation; at the time of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 13.3.2007, complainant was not residing at Bathinda. It denies that complainant had purchased the vehicle from it at Bathinda. Rather invoice and cover note clearly show that he had purchased the vehicle from its Ludhiana office. At that time, he was residing at Malout and not at Bathinda. It denies that other opposite parties have arrangement with dealers of Toyota cars. No letter dated 7.5.2007 has been issued by its authorised signatory. It admits that M/s. Chadha Super Cars (P) Ltd. had given the estimate of loss. Complaint is pre-mature. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurminder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.25), photocopy of invoice (Ex.C.2), photocopy of insurance cover note (Ex.C.3), photocopy of FIR (Ex.C.4), photocopies of letters dated 21.4.2007,28.5.2007,12.6.2007,29.6.2007, 2.7.2007 and 10.7.2007 (Ex.C.5, Ex.C.12, Ex.C.13 & Ex.C.16 to Ex.C.18), photocopy of driving licence of Achhar Singh (Ex.C.6), photocopy of registration certificate (Ex.C.7), photocopy of certificate dated 7.5.2007 (Ex.C.8), photocopy of legal notice dated 22.5.2007 (Ex.C.9),photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.10, Ex.C.11, Ex.C.14 & Ex.C.15), photocopy of claim form (Ex.C.19), photocopy of estimate (Ex.C.20), photocopy of receipt form (Ex.C.21), photocopy of cheque dated 4.8.2007 (Ex.C.22), photocopy of investigation report dated 27.6.2007 (Ex.C.23), photocopy of survey report dated 25.7.2007 (Ex.C.24), photocopy of application dated 19.3.2008 for production of record (Ex.C.26), photocopy of reply dated 10.4.2008 (Ex.C.27), photocopies of two pages of Toyota, Chola MS Sign Agreement(Ex.C.28) and photocopy of account statement (Ex.C.29).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Maninder Singh, Service Engineer of opposite party No.4 and Koma1 Kadambiny, Authorised Signatory of opposite party No.3 respectively, copy of terms and conditions of insurance policy (Ex.R.2), photocopy of survey report dated 21.1.2008 (Ex.R.4), photocopy of registration certificate (Ex.R.5), photocopy of Schedule-Motor Policy (Ex.R.6), photocopies of letters dated 28.8.2007 & 29.6.2007 (Ex.R.7 & Ex.R.10), photocopy of survey report dated 25.7.2007 (Ex.R.8), photocopy of Motor Insurance Claim Intimation-cum-Claim Form (Ex.R.9),Booklet of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy (Ex.R.11), photocopy of investigation report (Ex.R.12), photocopies of statements of Gurminder Singh, Karamjit Kaur and Lachhman Dass (Ex.R.13 to Ex.R.15)and photocopy of FIR (Ex.R.16). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Some facts are not in dispute in this case. They are that complainant is the owner of new Toyota Innova, the registration number of which is PB-03Q-1320 as is evident from Ex.C.7. It was got comprehensively insured with opposite parties No. 1 to 3 through opposite party No. 4 for the period 13.3.2007 to 12.3.2008. It was insured for a sum of Rs.7,07,931/- as is evident from the copy of the insurance cover note Ex.C.3. This vehicle had met with an accident on 20.4.2007. Driver of the car and two out of the remaining occupants namely Vinod Kumar and Meera Rani had died in the accident. Criminal case was registered in Police Station Sangat and copy of the FIR is Ex.C.4. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have taken the plea that complainant ought to have directly informed them and not through their agent. Vehicle was purchased with the financial assistance of ICICI Bank Ltd. Its hypothecation has already been entered in the registration certificate, copy of which is Ex.C.7. This vehicle has the seating capacity of 1+7 i.e. one driver and seven other occupants. On the basis of the information, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 had appointed Mr. Satish Kumar Bansal as Investigator. <br /> 8. One of the objections taken by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 is that complaint is of complicated nature and it requires the examination of lot of witnesses and their cross-examination and as such, the same cannot be decided in summary procedure by this Forum. This objection is not tenable in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCI Chambers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd.-III(2003)CPJ-9(SC) in which it has been held that merely because recording of evidence is required or some questions of law and facts arise which need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the door of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved. Similar view has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J. Merchants Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi-III(2002)CPJ-8 (S.C.). Moreover, parties have closed their evidence of their own. None of them brought to our notice that some other evidence was to be led and it could not be led as this Forum is deciding the matter in summary procedure. Hence, objection is not sustained.<br /> 9. Opposite party No. 4 has assailed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint on the grounds that vehicle was purchased from Ludhiana; its temporary registration certificate was issued from Ludhiana and it was insured at Ludhiana. This plea of opposite party No. 4 cuts no ice as car had met with an accident in the area of village Machhana, Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda. It being so, cause of action partly accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction o this Forum. Accordingly, this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in view of Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. For this, we are fortified by the observations of the Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Vs. Progigy Electronics Ltd. & Another-2008(1)Apex Court Judgments-67(SC). Similar view has been held in the case of Sishir Kumar Nayak Vs. Wing Stone Electronics-II(1993)CPJ-855.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3 argued that insured vehicle was being put to use by the complainant in violation of the limitations as to use clause as nine persons were being carried in it at the time of accident on account of which opposite insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss. For this, he drew our attention to the copies of the statements of complainant, Karamjit Kaur and Lachhman Dass which are Ex.R.13 to Ex.R.15 respectively and copy of the investigation report of Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal Ex.R.12. <br /> 11. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant countered these arguments by submitting that complainant did not violate any term and condition of the policy nor does it stand established that more persons than the seating capacity of the vehicle were travelling in it.<br /> 12. These respective submissions have been considered by us. Seating capacity of the vehicle is 1+7. Mr. Satish kumar Bansal is the Investigator. His affidavit has not been produced to prove his report and to substantiate that he had correctly record the statements. No-doubt, as per copies of these statements, eight persons excluding the driver were travelling in the vehicle. No weight can be attached to Ex.R.13 to Ex.R.15, particularly when they have not been legally proved either by way of examining the Investigator or producing his affidavit. Question is as to whether more persons than eight including the driver were sitting in the vehicle stands clinched with Ex.C.4 and copy of the report Ex.R.4 of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor deputed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3. According to the FIR, there were seven persons travelling in the vehicle including the driver. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 cannot wriggle out of the report of their own surveyor, copy of which is Ex.R.4. Sh. Goyal has made it clear that seven persons including the driver were travelling in the insured vehicle. Opposite insurance company did not deem it fit to place on record the affidavits of Karamjit Kaur and Nirmala to show that they were also travelling in the insured vehicle at the time of accident. As per report of Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal, Karamjit Kaur and Nirmala had received injuries. If they had received treatment from some doctor for the injuries, record regarding the same could be produced and proved or affidavit of the concerned doctor could be brought on record. Evidence to this effect is lacking. Hence, the conclusion is that there is no solid evidence of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to hold that more persons than seven including the driver were travelling in the insured vehicle at the time of accident. Even if it is taken for arguments sake although we do not subscribe to it that more persons than the seating capacity of the insured vehicle were travelling in it, even then opposite insurance company cannot decline the claim on this ground as it is not the case of any of the parties that accident had taken place on account of the fact that more persons than the seating capacity of the vehicle were sitting in it. There is no nexus between the accident and more persons allegedly sitting in the insured vehicle. <br /> 13. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant has repeatedly requested the opposite insurance company to pay the claim amount at the earliest possible regarding the loss/damage to the vehicle, but they have paid no heed. They continued raising frivolous objections.<br /> 14. Mr. Bharti, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3 argued that own damage claim regarding the vehicle has not so far been decided as the vehicle is lying with the law enforcing authority following the accident. No opportunity has been afforded by the complainant to the insurance company for inspecting the insured vehicle. He has not taken any steps to get the vehicle released on Sapurdari. It being so, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 were not able to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. He has not submitted the requisite forms like claim form. For this, he drew our attention to the various letters issued by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor. <br /> 15. We have pondered over the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Accident had taken place on 20.4.2007. Plea of the complainant is that opposite insurance company was intimated about the accident through opposite party No. 4 by way of moving an application, copy of which is Ex.C.5. Opposite parties deny that such intimation was given on 21.4.2007 and certificate dated 7.5.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.8, was issued by opposite party No.4. The denial of the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, opposite parties no. 1 to 3 appointed Sh. Dinesh kumar Goyal as their Surveyor & Loss Assessor. He submits motor survey report dated 25.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.24. A perusal of the same reveals that survey was allotted to him by the opposite parties and he had conducted the survey in Police Station Sangat on 5.5.2007. Vehicle was inspected by him and details of damages have also been given by him in his report. If there is no intimation of the accident with the opposite insurance company, the question of deputing the Surveyor and Loss Assessor did not arise. Fact that surveyor was appointed strengthens the story of the complainant about the giving of the intimation of the accident to the insurer through opposite party No. 4. Complainant has reiterated his version regarding this matter in his affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.24. In the certificate Ex.C.8 on the letter head of opposite party No.4 it has been clearly admitted that intimation regarding the accident was received on 21.4.2007 from the complainant regarding the total damage to the vehicle and that this information was sent to the insurance company. No-doubt, opposite party No. 4 through affidavit Ex.R.1 has denied this certificate dated 7.5.2007, but no weight can be attached to this affidavit in the facts and circumstances of this case. In para No. 17 of Ex.R.1, it has been mentioned that no such letter dated 7.5.2007 was issued by its authorised signatory. In case, it was not so issued by the authorised signatory of opposite party No.4, his signatures could be got compared on Ex.R.1. This has not been done. It has not been made clear in para no. 17 of Ex.R.1 as to who is the authorised signatory. It appears that plea of denial of issuance of the certificate is made up one in order to falsify the story of the complainant without any solid reasons. Hence, we hold that intimation of the accident was given by the complainant on 21.4.2007. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J Corporation-III(1996)CPJ-8(SC), it has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that reasonable period of taking decision of the claim by the insurer is three months. Likewise is the view of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Rice Company, Sangrur Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others-2005(1)CPC-479. In the case in hand, opposite insurance company did not take decision within three months. It has not decided the claim of the complainant till date. Complainant cannot be expected to wait the decision of the insurer indefinitely. In other words, insurer cannot wriggle out of the situation by saying that claim has not still been decided and as such, complaint is pre-mature. <br /> 16. Complainant gave notice to the insurer, copy of which is Ex.C.9, on 22.5.2007 with the request that vehicle has been totally damaged and claim amount be paid to him. Nothing has been done by the insurer. On 28.5.2007 letter, copy of which is Ex.C.12, was sent by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal Surveyor to the complainant intimating that spot/preliminary survey of the vehicle was conducted by him on 5.5.2007 in Police Station Sangat and he should submit detailed estimate of loss and claim duly filled and signed by him. Alongwith this letter, no claim form was sent. Despite this, Surveyor was asking the complainant to submit claim form. Complainant from the very beginning is intimating that his case is a total loss of the vehicle. Despite this, Surveyor was demanding estimate of loss. On 12.6.2007, complainant sent letter to the insurer that he has managed one claim form. It was further explained by him that Investigator was asking him to pay Rs. 5,000/- for the estimate. He further disclosed that it is the responsibility of the insurer to pay the amount. It was further brought to the notice of the insurer that Surveyor was asking him to transport the car to Ludhiana Workshop for preparing the estimate. He expressed his readiness to give power of attorney or to sign any other document authorising the insurer to take the vehicle on Sapurdari from the Court. Alongwith this letter, claim form was submitted by him. Insurer sent letter dated 29.6.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.16, with the direction that vehicle be produced for survey and estimate of loss and original documents be submitted. Insurance Company did not make reference of the letter dated 12.6.2007 sent by the complainant. Sh. Goyal Surveyor sent letter dated 2.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.17, demanding the same information as was demanded in the letter, copy of which is Ex.C.12. Complainant gave reply by way of sending registered letter, copy of which is Ex.C.18, intimating that claim form has already been submitted by him alongwith the letter dated 12.6.2007. He further conveyed that vehicle has been totally damaged and is not repairable. If estimate is required, the same could be arranged by the insurer/surveyor. His duty was to get the vehicle comprehensively insured and to pay the premium. Again, it was intimated by him that vehicle is lying in Police Station Sangat. Alongwith the letter dated 10.7.2007, complainant had sent photocopy of the claim form already submitted by him and fresh and duly filled in claim form. No decision was taken by the insurer. Compelled by the circumstances created by the insurer, complainant got prepared the estimate of the vehicle from the authorised dealer of this vehicle i.e. M/s. Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana which assessed the total loss of the vehicle as Rs. 9.08,138/-. There is no document of the opposite insurance company to counter the estimate, copy of which is Ex.C.20. From this document as well, plea of the complainant that vehicle was totally damaged is fortified. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by him to M/s. Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd. Through cheque, copy of which is Ex.C.22. Ex.C.23 is the report dated 27.6.2007 of Sh. Satish kumar Bansal Investigator who was appointed by the insurer. He also visited the site of accident as well as Police Station Sangat. Photos of the vehicle were taken by him. He concluded that car is beyond repairs and it is a case of total loss. Necessary documents were also taken by him from Police Station Sangat alongwith copy of FIR and other documents required in own damage claim. Surveyor Mr. Goyal in his report dated 25.7.2007 verified the driving licence, registration certificate and insurance policy. Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 could not show us any rule according to which Surveyor of the insurer cannot prepare the estimate in the Police Station and estimate is to be prepared by the insurer at some Workshop. Whatever possible was to be done by the complainant, has been done. Despite this, claim has not been finalized nor claim amount has been paid. Mr. Goyal Surveyor submitted survey report dated 21.1.2008 assessing the net loss as Rs.4,88,171.50. He inspected the vehicle on 5.5.2007. His preliminary report is dated 25.7.2007. As per this report dated 25.7.2007, he did not assess the loss but in the report dated 21.1.2008, he has assessed the loss. When he did not inspect the vehicle after 5.5.2007 to 21.1.2008, then how could he assess the loss as has been shown by him in para no. 11 of his report, copy of which is Ex.R.4. It appears that he has prepared the assessment regarding the loss without any basis. Claim regarding various items has been shown to have been disallowed by him without any reason. Such arbitrary report of Mr. Dinesh Kumar Goyal cannot be accepted, particularly when it is a case of total loss of the vehicle and this fact has been admitted by the Investigator of the insurer as well. No depreciation in such a case can be allowed when the accident is within six months from the date of purchase of this vehicle. Through letter dated 28.8.2007, insurer opined that liability would not exceed Rs.5,00,000/- in any version of assessment i.e. on repair basis or net of salvage basis or total loss basis. How could he express this opinion. He did not inspect the vehicle after 5.5.2007. Report dated 21.1.2008 appears to have been submitted by him to counter the estimate submitted by the complainant. He is not denying total loss of the vehicle in the letter dated 28.8.2007. Keeping all the relevant facts, circumstances and the evidence on the record in view, crux of the matter is that it is a case of total loss of the vehicle. Claim of the complainant has been unnecessarily delayed by the insurer without any sufficient cause and reason. Claim was required to be decided within three months but this has not been done. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 1 to 3 is writ large.<br /> 17. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Complainant claims Rs.9,14,189.88 alongwith interest. Vehicle has been insured for a sum of Rs. 7,07,931/- with the opposite insurance company. Insured's declared value is settled with the consent of the insured and the insurer. It being so, complainant cannot claim that he is entitled to the actual price of the car i.e. Rs.7,45,189.88, particularly when vehicle has been insured for Rs. 7,07,931/-. Similarly, there is no case to allow Rs. 35,000/- for accessories. In our view, complainant becomes entitled to recover the insured amount alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 22.7.2007 (The date calculated on expiry of three months period from the date of intimation of the accident, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course) till payment as it is a case of total loss of the vehicle. For this, reference may be made to the observations of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurjant Singh and another-First Appeal No. 1342 of 2005 decided on 31.1.2006 in which it has been held that once vehicle is comprehensively insured and it is a case of total loss, then its insured's declared value is payable. Apart from this, he can claim Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 4.8.2007 till payment paid by him to M/s. Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd. for getting the estimate prepared especially when the estimate has been prepared at the asking of the insurer. A sum of Rs. 17,000/- is being claimed by the complainant on the ground that it has been spent by him for registration of the car. By no stretch of imagination, the insurer can be held liable to pay this amount. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is being claimed for mental pain, agony, tension, botheration and harassment. In view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above, this prayer cannot be allowed. Out of compensation and interest, one can be allowed. <br /> 18. In view of our forgoing discussion, complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties no. 1 to 3. it stands dismissed qua opposite party No.4. Admittedly, car has been hypothecated with ICICI Bank Ltd., Bibi Wala Road, Ist Floor, Queensland Tower, Bathinda. Complainant has made statement on 2.6.2008 that his car stands hypothecated with this bank. In these circumstances, complainant and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Complainant would transfer the ownership of the car and execute letter of subrogation as per requirements of opposite party No. 1 in its favour conferring all the rights in the car including its ownership with it i.e. opposite insurance company through its Regional Manager within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> ( ii ) After the complainant transfers the ownership and executes letter of subrogation as above, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 would pay Rs. 7,07,931/- to ICICI Bank, Bibiwala Road, Ist Floor, Queensland Tower, Bathinda alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 22.7.2007 till payment within a month.<br /> (iii) Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 would pay Rs. 10,000/- to it (ICICI Bank Ltd.) alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 4.8.2007 till payment within one month from the date compliance is made by the complainant as per sub para No. (i) of Para No. 18.<br /> (iv) Aforesaid ICICI Bank Ltd. Would adjust the amount sent by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 in the loan account of the complainant regarding the car and if any amount is found excess, it would remit the same to the complainant within ten days from the date of receipt thereof, failing which it would pay interest on the excess amount @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> (v) In case, complainant does not transfer the ownership of the car and execute letter of subrogation as per clause (i) within the period referred to above in favour of the opposite insurance company, he would not be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 7,07,931/- after two months after the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> (vi) Compliance regarding payment of costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 19. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 9.6.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg'