Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/262

Ashok Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

in person

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 262 of 2013

                                                           

                                     Date of institution:  7.3.2013 

                             Date of Decision: 24.2.2015

 

Ashok Aggarwal son of Parmanand, resident of House No. S-142, Industrial Area, Sodal Chowk, Jalandhar City.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No. IV, House No. N.N. 2, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar City through its Senior Branch Manager.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party

 

First Appeal against the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. B.J. Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent :         None.

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No. 290 dated vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with a direction to the Op to pay Rs. 15,000/- in lumpsum on account of compensation and litigation expenses, which should be paid within one month, otherwise it will carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order, till payment. 

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondent/opposite party(hereinafter referred as ‘the OP’)  on the allegations that as an owner of Pick Up Tata 207 bearing registration No. PB-08-AP-6519(Temp.) had insured with opposite party under Package Policy bearing No. 401110/31/10/6300013262 for the period 11.11.2010 to 10.11.2011 under Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle Open Policy B Package for total IDV of Rs. 4,70,155/- covering the risk of accidental loss or damage theft and liability for 3^rd party risk. However, on 7.12.2010 at midnight the insured vehicle was parked by the complainant on the road side and was stolen from there in the morning of 8.12.2010. He got registered FIR No. 183 dated 8.12.2010 under Section 379 with P.S. Industrial Area, Jalandhar. The intimation was also given to the OP vide letter dated 10.12.010 and claim was lodged alongwith required documents. Despite protracted follow up by personal visits, telephone inquiries and protestations, the opposite party dilly dallied the settlement and payment of claim to the complainant to cause financial loss to the complainant. The untraced report was also accepted by Mrs. Tripatjot Kaur, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar on 7.11.2011. However, the opposite party had been raising frivolous queries and number of reminders were issued by the complainant with the opposite party. The claim should have been settled the claim within 30 days from the date of receipt of the claim from the Surveyor. However, the OP had settled the claim and made the payment of Rs. 4,69,655/- by paying cheque No. 448252 dated 17.5.2012, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Op. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the OP to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on a sum of Rs. 4,69,655/- w.e.f. 1.6.2012, pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac, Rs. 50,000/- for arranging alternative transport and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3.                The claim was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and that the claim of the complainant had already been paid by OP. On merits, it was denied that no policy document was not delivered to the complainant. After lodging of the claim, the final investigation report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was submitted by the complainant with the Op on 29.11.2011. Thereafter, the copy of temporary registration certificate, duplicate key of the vehicle and proof of existence of the vehicle for the theft was asked from the complainant vide letter dated 21.1.2012 to settle the claim. On receipt of the reply from the complainant, the claim was processed and approved and cheque dated 17.5.2012 amounting to Rs. 4,69,655/- was paid. It was denied that there was any dilly dialling on the part of the Op. The delay happened due to completion of the formalities. There was no deficiency in services on the part of the Op. The complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C/A, letter dt. 1.6.12 Ex. C-1, cheque Ex. C-2, insurance Ex. C-3, letter dt. 9.3.12 Ex. C-4, letter dt. 7.3.12 Ex. C-5, letter Ex. C-6, Surveyor report Ex. C-7, enquiry report Ex. C-8, letter dt. 8.12.2011 Ex. C-9, RC Ex. C-10, Temporary certificate Ex. C-11, letter Ex. C-12, Untrace Report Exs. C-13 & 15, statement of complainant Ex. C-14, court order Ex. C-16, DDR Ex. C-17, FIR Ex. C-18, letter dt. 28.6.11 Ex. C-19, letter dt. 10.12.2010 Ex. C-20, addl. Affidavit Ex. C/B, LIC policy Ex. C-21, judgments Exs. C-22 & 23, letter dt. 3.5.12 Ex. C-24, letter dt. 12.4.12 Ex. C-25, letter dt. 13.4.12 Ex. C-26, documents supply letter Ex. C-27. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of K.S. Neogi, Sr. Br. Manager Ex. R-1, letter dt. 21.1.12 Ex. R-2, letter dt. 6.2.12 Ex. R-3, letter dt. 17.2.12 Ex. R-4, letter dt. 9.3.12 Ex. R-5, letter dt. 27.3.12 Ex. R-6, letter dt. 9.5.12 Ex. R-7.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed by the learned District Forum.

7.                In the appeal, it has been contended that very petty amount of compensation has been allowed. The interest should have been paid @ 2% per annum and the amount of compensation be enhanced to Rs. 1 lac.

8.                We have heard the contentions as raised by the counsel for the appellant/complainant.

9.                No doubt that there was delay on the part of the Op to settle the claim and for that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- has already been awarded by the District Forum.

10.              In case we go through the background of the case, the occurrence took place on 7/8.12.2010 and that the payment was released to the complainant on 17.5.2012 after a gap of about one year 9 months, otherwise, the claim should have been settled within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Surveyor Report as per IRDA Regulations, 2002 Clause 9.

11.              It was a case of theft, therefore, Surveyor was not appointed but required documents were finally submitted to the OP vide letter dated 21.2.2012 and after that the claim was not settled within a period of one month. Certainly, there is delay for three months. The interest is to be calculated on the amount of Rs. 4,69,655/- for a period of two months because one month was legally allowed to the Op to settle the claim on completion of the documents and for the delay of two months, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- had already been allowed by the learned District Forum and this amount seems to be reasonable amount.

12.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

February 24, 2015.                                                (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member