DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 31 of 2.2.2017
Decided on: 13.3.2018
Satinder Kumar son of Sh.Udey Bhan, Resident of Ward No.4, Amba colony, Cheeka, Kaithal (Haryana).
…………...Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office, Near Truck Union, Ghagga Road, Samana, District Patiala, through its Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Vikas Mittal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Satinder Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for giving direction to it for the following reliefs:-
- To release the claim amount of Rs.15,60,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of burning of vehicle till its realization;
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment ;
- To pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses and also
- To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of vehicle make Tata Trolla 3118 bearing registration No.HR-64-6729. The said vehicle was got insured with the OP vide policy bearing No.401408/31/14/6300002492 for the period from 13.3.2015 to 12.3.2016, with IDV of Rs.15,60,000/-It is stated that on 30.8.2015, after getting loaded Bajrai , in the said vehicle, when the driver reacted ahead of Adda Kut Majra at about 7.30P, the impugned vehicle caught fire and was ablazed . Huge loss was occurred to the vehicle in question. All the documents such as RC, permit, fitness certificate, insurance and driving licence which were lying in the vehicle were burnt. In this regard DDR No.12 dated 31.8.2013 was got lodged with the police. Intimation of the said incident was also given to the OP. An investigator was appointed by the OP, who made a rough claim and also obtained the signature of the complainant and other persons on various papers by writing the statement at his own without disclosing the contents of the documents to them. The complainant time and again approached and requested the OP for the payment of the insured amount of Rs.15,60,000/- but the OP every time put off the matter on one pretext or the other and did not pay any amount to the complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 13.1.2017 upon the OP but it did not pay any heed. There is thus, deficiency of service on the part of the OP, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared through counsel and filed its written version, taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased insurance policy for Tata Tralla 3118 bearing registration No.HR-64-6729 for the period from 13.3.2015 to 12.3.2016 for insured declared value of Rs.15,60,000/-, subject to terms and conditions of the policy . It is stated that on receipt of intimation of loss, the Op immediately deputed IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor Sh. Satinder Pal Singh of Hoshiarpur for spot survey, who submitted his report dated 10.9.2015 and Sh. G. P. S. Miglani IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor , Ludhiana , deputed for assessing the loss submitted his report dated 18.1.2016 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,80,000/- on net of salvage basis with R.C. and the insured had given consent dated 14.1.2016 for the said amount to the surveyor. It is stated that the OP has already settled the claim and is ready to pay a sum of Rs.710132/- due amount of loss. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh. Narinder Manchanda, Sr. Branch Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Satinder Pal Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ex.OPC, affidavit of Sh.G.P.S.Mighlani, surveyor and loss assessor alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP7 and closed evidence of OP.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle in question caught fire and was damaged, totally. The said vehicle was insured by the OP for IDV of Rs. 15,60,000/-. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP but nothing has been paid by it.
On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that on lodging of the claim by the complainant, the OP had appointed the surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,80,000/-. Thereafter, the claim was sent to Regional Claims Committee, for recommendation. On the recommendation of the said committee, the claim was settled for Rs.7,10,132/- and the OP is ready to pay the said amount.
7. From the certificate of insurance Ex.C2, it is evident that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP for the period from 13.3.2015 to 12.3.2016 having total IDV of Rs.15,60,000/-.From the copy of DDR dated 31.8.2015, Ex.C3,it is evident that the said vehicle was damaged on 30.8.2015 due to fire . On lodging of the claim, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. From the surveyor report, Ex.OP1, it is evident that the said surveyor has assessed the value of the salvage to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- with R.C and has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,80,000/-on net of salvage basis. The complainant gave his consent to receive the said amount of Rs.9,80,000/-vide letter 14.1.2016, Ex.OP3.Thereafter, the OP, on the recommendation of the Regional Claims Committee has settled to the claim to the tune of Rs.7,10,132, as is evident from the letter dated 23.3.2017,Ex.OP7. However, no reason whatsoever has been given by the OP, as to why, it has settled the claim for less amount than the amount assessed by the surveyor. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the OP by not paying the amount of Rs.9,80,000/-, as assessed by the surveyor, for which the complainant has already given his consent, has committed deficiency in service. The OP is thus liable to pay the said amount of Rs.9,80,000/- and not Rs.15,60,000/- as prayed for by the complainant. The OP is also liable to pay the interest on the said amount of Rs.9,80,000/- and compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:
- To pay Rs.9,80,000/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 2.2.2017 till its realization;
- To pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant
- To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
The OP is further directed to comply the aforesaid directions within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:13.3. 2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
