Delhi

New Delhi

CC/763/2016

Naveen Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.763/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Naveen Kumar Gupta

S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar

R/o 12/32, Block-12, III^rd  Floor,

Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015                                                     ….Complainant

VERSUS

 

L & T General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through Its Manager

Serving Branch Address:-

L & T General Insurance Co. Ltd.

6th Floor, DCM Building, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001                                             ....Opposite Party

 

Corum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

Shri Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                                                                   Date of Institution:- 23.12.2016                                                                                                                                                                        Date of Order          :-  16.01.2023

 

ORDER

 

Per Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party and got insured his vehicle bearing registration No. DL-10-CC- 0221 Car - make Volkswagen vide Policy No. 915101005187810000, which policy was valid from 12/05/2015 to 11/05/2016.
2. It is submitted that on 22^nd November, 2015 complainant with his friend was going to Mahendergadh to attend the marriage and when he reached Bhadurgarh Hi. City on Bhadurgarh Bye-Pass at about 6:00 PM a truck bearing no. RJ-32GA-6524 without following the proper traffic rules entered on the above said main road from the left side in rash and negligent manner and hit the above said car of the complainant from driver side with the result the car of the complainant was badly damaged and the complainant sustained minor injuries. The driver of the said truck then hit another vehicle - Sentro car bearing no: DL 1CH-2869. An F.IR. was lodged on the complaint of the complainant at P.S. Sadar Badurdargarh.
3. It is further submitted that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the above said truck driver as he was not following the rules of traffic. On 24^th November, 2015 the complainant immediately informed the opposite party regarding the above said accident. On complainant’s information, the opposite party registered the claim; appointed a surveyor for settling the claim of the complainant. The damaged car was sent to the workshop/service centre.
4. As alleged by the complainant, he approached the opposite party through telephone, e-mail as well as visited the office of the opposite party but all gone in vain and the opposite party kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter on 28the September, 2016 the complainant visited the office of the respondent. On the same day the opposite party communicated to the complainant through mail that the claim file is under review with the technical team of the opposite party to clear certain discrepancies/clarification and an independent investigator/surveyor was deputed. It is the case of the complainant that since there was assurance from the opposite party for clearing the bill, the complainant paid service/repair charges of the workshop/service centre amount to Rs. 2,04,632 directly against  invoice dated 28^th December, 2015.
5. The complainant further alleges that such conduct on the part of opposite party as service provider, amounts to gross deficiency in the service on their part and is a matter of gross negligence as it was the duty of the opposite party to settle the insurance claim and release the amount to the complainant as all the necessary papers and documents had already been submitted with the opposite party from time to time. The said insurance claim is still pending after a long period of more than one year.

 

6. Thus the complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to settle/ clear/release the claim amount of the complainant regarding the vehicle repair cost i.e. Rs.2,04,632/-, which was paid by the complainant directly to the service centre, in favour of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. with compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment suffered by the complainant. Claim to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- have also been prayed for.
7. In reply to the complaint, the opposite party has filed a detailed reply stating that the present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action whatsoever has arisen in favor of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle i.e. Volkswagen Polo car bearing registration no. DL-10-CC-0221 and that after the purchase of the above-said vehicle the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for insurance policy. The Complainant was apprised of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thereafter "My Asset Private Car Package Policy" bearing policy no. 915101005187810000 was issued in the favour of the Complainant, which was valid from 12/05/2015 to 11/05/2016. The opposite party has also not denied the averments relating to the accident of the vehicle and appointment of the Surveyor & Loss Assessor to investigate the claim of the complainant.
8. The Surveyor vide his final report assessed the net liability to the tune of INR 1,19,825/-. On receipt of the Surveyor's report, the insurer's liability was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,19,825/- and the Opposite Party discharged its liability vide cheque dated 18/03/2017 bearing reference no. 119825 which was duly acknowledged by the Complainant.
9. Thus the opposite party claims that it had duly adhered to the agreed terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the assessment of the said vehicle was done as per the guidelines issued by IRDA by appointing licensed Independent surveyor.
10. In paragraph 10A of the Amended Complaint, the complainant has admitted that he has already received a sum of Rs. 1,19,825/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Five) on 9^th February, 2017 from the opposite party after filing of the present complaint before this Commission.  From the contents of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the complainant received and encashed the said amount without any condition. Thus, it is to be treated as full and final settlement of claim. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6277 of 2004 “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchnd Rai Chandan Lal, wherein it is held that ‘it is a settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference  to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition given in other laws.  It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract, the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on the definition given in other enactment’ this commission cannot ignore the terms of the policy.  As regard weightage to be given to the surveyor report, the Hon’ble National Commission in Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) CPJ 93 (NC) has held that  the report of the surveyor has to be given due weightage and the Consumer Commission cannot go into the question of quantum dispute as it will involve a detailed investigation, which cannot be dealtwih in the summary proceeding as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. We have gone through the record and heard the parties. In view of the law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, we do not find any force in the submissions of the complainant to grant the claim more than the Surveyor’s report. Since there was delay on settlement of the claim and the complainant was forced to approach this Commission, therefore, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- are granted as litigation expenses to the complainant which will be paid within four weeks failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest over the said amount @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order be sent provided to all the parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

 

[Poonam Chaudhry]

President

[Bariq Ahmad]                                                                                                               [Shekhar Chandra]   

Member                                                                                                                                  Member