Haryana

StateCommission

A/350/2015

VIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH YADAV

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.350 of 2015

Date of Institution: 21.04.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 21.04.2016

 

 

1.      Vikram Singh S/o Sh.Ramautar, r/o village Faizabad,Tehsil and  District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

2.      Smt.Rajbala widow of  Sh.Ramautar, r/o village Faizabad,Tehsil and  District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

3.      Kumari Sushsma D/o Sh.Ramautar, r/o village Faizabad,Tehsil and  District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

…..Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance company 3388 Green House D.B.Gupta road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

2.      Deputy General Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., 10^th Floor, core First Scope Minor District Centre Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110001.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

 

It was alleged by the complainant that their father Ramautar got his car bearing registration No. HR-35G-8338 insured from the respondents-(O.Ps.) for the insured value of Rs.2,58,008/- which was valid from 07.03.2013 to 06.03.2014.  On 19.07.2013 vehicle met with an accident and their father succumbed to the injuries received therein.  An application was moved before O.Ps. for compensation.  Sh. Manoj Kumar Kukreja came to spot and obtained their signatures on blank papers with the assurance that Rs.2,58,008/- would be sent to them.  Ultimately they came to know that value of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.1,57,008/- and Rs.One lac as of salvage.  They never consented for Rs.1,57,008/- and O.Ps. be directed to pay entire IDV besides compensation for mental harassment etc.

2.      O.Ps. were proceeded ex parte on 19.11.2014 when nobody appeared on their behalf despite service.

3.      After hearing counsel for the complainant, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.02.2015 and directed as under:-

“Taking into account every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainants and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,57,008/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2014 till the date of payment to the legal heirs of Ramautar deceased, as per the provision of law of succession.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal to enhance the amount of compensation because they never consented for Rs.1,57,008/- and are also entitled for compensation qua mental harassment etc.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for respondents vehemently argued that  surveyor enquired about value of the vehicle from market and thereafter assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,008/-. The complainants also consented for the same.  The car/salvage is still with the complainants.  They cannot kept car with them and ask for Rs.2,58,008/-.  Learned District Forum rightly decided the matter and appeal be dismissed.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. The O.Ps. have miserably failed to show that the complainants ever consented to settle claim at Rs.1,57,008/-.  In the absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed that the appellants-complainants are barred from raising demand of more compensation.  It is not disputed that IDV of car was Rs.,2,58,008/-.  It has also not been disputed that the present case was decided as total loss.  In this way salvage value of the car comes to Rs.2,58,008/- - Rs.1,57,008/-= 1,01,000/- when the complainants are asking for total IDV, insurance company is bound to pay the same and can retain salvage of the car.  The insurance Company cannot force complainants, without their consent, to accept Rs.1,57,008/- as of compensation.

8.      As a sequal to above discussion the appeal is allowed and complainants are held entitled for IDV of car i.e. Rs.2,58,008/-, but, the O.Ps. will be entitled to retain car/salvage because complainant’s cannot retain salvage and ask for total IDV.  They are also granted compensation of Rs.11,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5100/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

April 21st, 2016           Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.