BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 303 of 2015.

                                                Date of Institution:         28.10.2015.

                                                Date of Decision:           07.02.2019.                                               

Pardeep Singh son of Shri Hans Ram, resident of village Dinod, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

…..Complainant.

                                    Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Circular Road, behind Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite Party.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Sandeep Budhera, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he is owner of vehicle No.HR16M-6796, which was insured with the OP w.e.f. 18.5.2014 to 17.5.2015 vide policy/cover note No.31260031140101564704 for Rs. 4,90,770/-.  It is further alleged that the vehicle in question has been fully damaged in an accident on 11.12.2014 and the information in this regard was given to the OP immediately.  It is further alleged that the complainant submitted his claim No.312600/81/14/01/91146757 with the OP.  It is further alleged that the OP company vide its letter dated 23.3.2015 has informed that the claim of the complainant was approved by competent authority, Rohtak on the basis of Net Salvage Basis and asked the complainant to send the RC of the vehicle in question after got cancelled from the concerned office and also asked to send the voucher by signing on the same after affixing a revenue stamp, also send a copy of the PAN card for making payment of claim before ending financial year 2014-2015.  It is further alleged that in reply to the letter of the OP, the complainant has clearly informed the OP company that a case No.144 of 27.3.2014 under Section 279/337 IPC, P. S. Sadar, Rohtak is pending and the original RC of the vehicle in question is lying on the above said case and he is unable in canceling the RC before the decision of the above said case.  It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 1.7.2015 was also served upon the OP through Shri Sandeep Budhera, Advocate, Bhiwani, but the OP did not reply the same.  It is further alleged that the complainant has received a letter on 1.7.2015 from the OP bearing No. 285 dated 30.6.2015, in which the OP pressurize the complainant for giving an affidavit with regard to deduction of Rs. 1,90,000/- and Rs. 1000/-. It is further alleged that complainant requested the OP company many times for the payment of the claim, but to no effect.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                OP on appearance filed contested written statement alleging therein that complainant himself failed to comply with the letters written to him for completion of formalities and supply of documents i.e. submission of affidavit for final settlement of claim along keeping alive RC of the vehicle, but the complainant failed to reply and submit the documents/affidavit in accordance with letter dated 30.6.2015 and served a legal notice instead of responding to the letter of the company.  It is further alleged that earlier the complainant was asked to get the RC of the vehicle cancelled for settlement of total loss claim of the vehicle, but the complainant did not cancel the RC and stated that RC of his vehicle is lying in the court in some other case, as such the claim could not be settled either without RC or with cancellation of RC, as stated above on account of non co-operation and non submission of documents.  It is further alleged that there is no responsibility of the OP regarding non-payment of claim, rather the complainant himself is responsible for this non-settlement.  It is further alleged that as per survey report of Shri Raj Kumar Singal, Chartered Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor recommended the payable amount Rs. 3,95,000/- less policy clause of Rs. 1000/- payable Rs. 3,94,000/- subject to cancellation of RC, but the company on the request of complainant recommended the settlement of claim to the tune of Rs.2,99,000/- subject to submission of affidavit by the complainant that he shall raise no objection and keep the RC alive, but the complainant neither submitted the affidavit nor cancelled the RC, therefore, the claim is not found payable, as such complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  It is further alleged that there was no occasion for the complainant for coming in the office of the OP and no assurance was given, rather everything was in black & white, but the complainant was interested to receive the total damage without deduction of salvage value by keeping the RC of vehicle alive, which was not possible and no pressure to give affidavit was ever created by the OP company, rather the company was interested to settle the claim in both situations i.e. with cancellation of RC or without cancellation of RC and it was complainant, who did not agree and not completed the requisite papers.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record documents Annexure C1 to C12 and closed the evidence. 

4.                 Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record Annexure R1 to R5 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance.  From the Annexure C-7, reply to legal notice, it is clear that the OP company was ready to settle the claim on total loss basis for Rs. 4,90,000/- subject to cancellation of RC.  As per the Annexure C-8, letter written by the OP company dated 30.6.2015, the OP was ready to pay Rs. 2,99,000/- to the complainant without cancelling RC.  As per Annexure C-9, the complainant has got cancelled the HPA.  The only plea taken by the OP is that the company was interested to settle the claim in both situations i.e. with cancellation of RC or without cancellation of RC and it was complainant, who did not agree and not completed the requisite papers for settling the claim.  This plea of the OP company is not tenable, because from bare perusal of annexure C10 i.e. letter dated 7.11.2016 written by Registering Authority, Bhiwani to the OP company, it is crystal clear that the RC of vehicle in question was cancelled, but the OP has not settled the claim for the reasons best known to them.  From the perusal of Annexure C-11, the surveyor report, it is clear that the surveyor has recommended the claim of complainant for Rs. 3,94,000/- (sum assured 490000/-, correct IDV of vehicle 490614.12/-, loss settled with insured 490000/- and salvage value of vehicle without RC 95000/-, liability on net loss basis 395000/- less policy clause 1000/-, amount payable 394000/-), after deducting salvage value and policy clause (without RC).

7.                Now, the question arises whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not?  In our view, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, because as per the annexure C10 the RC was cancelled on 7.11.2016, but even after cancellation of the RC the OP has failed in settling the claim of the complainant.  The OP even failed to prove on record with some documentary evidence that why they have not settled the claim after cancellation of RC on 7.11.2016.  It appears that the OP has knowingly and intentionally not settled the claim after the cancellation of the RC of the vehicle.  The OP cannot take shelter behind ifs and buts, while it is clearly proved on record that the RC of the vehicle has been got cancelled by the complainant from the competent authority on 7.11.2016.  Thus, there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and they cannot be allowed to run away from their responsibility.

8.                Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of complainant is partly allowed with costs.  Thus, the OP is directed to: -

i.        To pay Rs.3,94,000/- (490000/-, less salvage 95000/- & less policy clause 1000/-) as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of cancelling RC i.e. 7.11.2016 till its realization.

iii.      To pay Rs.7000/- as litigation charges. 

The salvage remained with the complainant.  The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 7.2.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 07.02.2019.     

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.