Punjab

Sangrur

CC/537/2017

Smt.Malwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Rajnesh Verma

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    537

                                                Instituted on:      11.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       15.03.2018

 

1. Smt. Malwinder Kaur widow 2. Maninder Singh son and 3.Dharamjit Singh son of Late Daljit Singh S/o Inder Singh, residents of House No.3230, Street No.13, Prem Basti, Ward No.18, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     National Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office 3/ Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700071 through its M.D.

2.     National Insurance Company Ltd. 1^st and 2^nd Floor, National Insurance Building, Opp. Kula Park Market, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur 148001 through its D.M.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajnish Verma, Adv.

For Opp. Parties :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.      

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Malwinder Kaur widow, Maninder Singh son and Dharamjit Singh, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that they are the legal heirs of Shri Daljit Singh, who obtained the services of the OPs by getting insured his vehicle bearing regsitration number PB-13-Y-9833 from the OPs vide insurance policy number 404200/31/15/6300004282 for the period from 12.3.2016 to 11.3.2017 and the complainant number 1 was the nominee under the policy. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, Shri Daljit Singh (referred to as DLA in short) loaded the truck in question on 20.11.2016 with potato from Jalandhar to Assam and on its way on 21.11.2016 at about 7.00 AM, the above mentioned vehicle when reached near the bridge of Bagool river in the area of Hulas Nagar District Shahjahanpur (UP), the front portion of the vehicle fell into the ditch and the backside of the trailer pressed the front portion of the trailer, resulting both the driver Daljit Singh as well as the cleaner Ravi @ Sonu died at the spot. Further case of the complainant is that the OPs though paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- being the claim amount on account of death of the owner/driver, but the remaining claim i.e. the claim on account of loss to the truck to the tune of Rs.15,75,000/- was not paid as the vehicle was declared to be total loss as it was beyond any repairs.  Though the complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs for the claim amount, but all in vain despite serving of legal notice dated 5.8.2017 upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.15,75,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs under the policy as mentioned in the complaint.  Further it is submitted that after receipt of the intimation dated 22.11.2016 regarding accident of the vehicle in question on 21.11.2016, the Ops appointed Shri Barkat Ali Khan surveyor and loss assessor to submit the spot survey report, who submitted his survey report on 30.11.2016 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  Further it is stated that after receipt of the spot survey report, the Ops appointed Shri Manjit Singh Kohli, surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10,64,998/- on repair basis after deducting depreciation on metal and rubber parts.  But, the case of the Ops is that after examining the final report, the OP number 2 sent a registered letter dated 15.9.2017 to the insured for submitting the bills of repair and parts, so that the claim to be processed, but the complainant did not submit the bills rather filed the present complaint, which is said to be premature and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 copies of the documents and  affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs-1 to Ex.OPs-9 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got comprehensively insured his truck in question bearing registration number PB-13-Y-9833 from the OPs for the period from 12.03.2016 to 11.03.2017 for Rs.15,75,000/-  by paying the requisite premium of Rs.30,675/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-1 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 21.11.2016 when it was on its way from Jalandhar to Assam, of which FIR dated 21.11.2016 was got recorded, as is evident from the copy of FIR on record as Ex.C-7. It is further not in dispute that in the accident the owner driver Daljit Singh as well as cleaner died in the accident. It is further admitted fact that after receipt of the intimation of loss of the vehicle in accident, the OPs immediately appointed Shri Barkat Ali Khan, surveyor and loss assessor to submit the survey report, who submitted his report dated 30.11.2016 and further it is contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that after receipt of the spot survey report, the OPs appointed Shri Manjit Singh Kohli, surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted his report whereby he assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.10,64,998/-, but the Ops did not pay the amount to the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not submit the required bills to the OPs. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not submitted the bills to the Ops as she was demanding the claim amount on total loss basis and to support such a contention, the complainant has produced on records the photographs Ex.C-16, Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18, which shows that the vehicle in question is lying in turtle condition, meaning thereby the vehicle in question has suffered heavy loss.  But, the Ops have not settled the claim of the complainant even on repairs basis on the ground that the complainant did not submit the required bills for settlement of the claim. It is clear that the vehicle in question suffered heavy loss/damage.  Now, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to settle the claim as per the survey report, a copy of which on record is Ex.OPs/2, whereby the surveyor Shri Manjit Singh Kohli has assessed the claim payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,64,998/- on repair basis.

 

6.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant number 1 an amount of Rs.10,64,998/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.10.2017 till realisation.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        March 15, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member

                                                             

                               

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member