Complainant Dr.Manish Sethi through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (hereinafter for short, 'the Act') praying for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties insurers to pay him the balance amount of Rs.1,55,000/- out of his insurance claim alongwith damages of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% P.A. in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he had insured his car No.CH-04K-9186 from the OP insurers for an IDV of Rs.6,50,000/- commencing from 10.8.2012 to 9.8.2013. However, the insured car met with an accident on 16.1.2013 suffering serious loss/damages. The surveyor deputed by the OP insurers assessed the loss at Rs.7,37,509.50/- being more than the IDV figure and thus the complainant was entitled to full insurance claim of Rs.6,50,000/- i.e. the IDV amount. However, the OP insurers paid him Rs.4,10,000/- as insurance amount and Rs.85,000/- as car salvage value i.e. Rs.4,95,000/- in total. The complainant has further stated that he was forced to negotiate the above lower amount with the OP4 Company surveyor and being in need of money accepted the same and thus prompted the present complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the OP insurers appeared through their counsel and filed their reply straightway saying that the complainant had consented to receive the lower amount for an expeditious  receipt of the claim amount and presently he cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the sue motto consent given by him. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

4.    Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarsem Lal, Sr.Divisional Manager N.I.C. Ex.OP-1 and copy of consent letter Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We find that the Repairs Estimates Ex.C4 and also the OP’s appointed Surveyor’s Report Ex.C9 have placed their respective figures much higher than the full IDV of the insured vehicle (stipulated being 75% only) and as such the complainant has been throughout entitled to an insurance claim of Rs.6.50 Lac i.e., equivalent to the IDV as per the Insurance Policy in question. The reason put forth by the OP insurers (in the written statement & the affidavit Ex.OP1) for settling and paying the complainant a lesser claim of (Rs.4.10 Lac + 0.85 Lac) = Rs.4.95 Lac has been the complainant’s consent letter Ex.OP2 alleged to have been executed by him ‘suo-moto’ but negotiated with Sh.M L Mehta, the OP4 Surveyor. (Sic. It is indeed not understood as to how a consumer shall (with free consent) accept a lesser amount than the one to which he has been legally entitled. An ‘expeditious- settlement’ shall not be acceptable as a cogent reason and moreover ironically, there has been ‘delay’ as evident on records and the complainant was forced to pay ‘parking charges’ of Rs.15,000/-. And, how the OP’s surveyor could be authorized to act as ‘negotiator’? From the material as available on records it transpires that all the five opposite parties conspired and were ‘accomplice’ to exploit (to the optimum) the ‘subservient’ position of the complainant. To say the least it is least expected of a nationalized enterprise. The claim should have been gracefully settled and paid strictly as per the complainant’s entitlement and the IRDA guidelines pertaining to the subject-matter.

8.       In the light of the all above, we find and hold the OP insurers liable to settle and pay the present insurance claim to the complainant’s valid entitlement of full IDV of Rs.6.50 Lac (without any deductions except the paid-claim amount)  besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing harassment through deployment of an unfair trade practice and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9 % PA with effect from the date of filing of the present compliant till actually paid.  

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                 (Naveen Puri)                                          

             President

ANNOUNCED:                    (G.B.S.Bhullar)                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 21, 2015.                           Member                                  Member

*MK*