DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 444 of 28.11.2018

                                      Decided on:       9.1.2020

Reethu Singh aged about 60 years, son of Maha Singh, R/o House No.59-B,Sarabha Nagar, Bhadson Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Managing Director, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Head Office: A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional office: Sai Market, Near Polo Ground, Patiala.

                                                                   …………    Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member                                   

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Vikas Mittal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This is the complaint filed by Reethu Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against   Managing Director Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another         (hereinafter referred to as OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of vehicle make AMW-25-18-4300WB6X4, bearing registration No.PB-11BK-2669.The said vehicle was insured with the OPs for the period from 19.11.2016 to 18.11.2017, vide policy No.233591/31/2017/1318 with the insured value of Rs.17,85,000/-.
3. It is contended that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 20.3.2017 near Khonsa, Tirap  and there was total loss of the vehicle. Intimation of the accident of the vehicle was given to the local office of the OPs, who got conducted  spot survey by personally deputing the officials and the accident was found to be genuine. Necessary documents were supplied to the OPs. The OPs got signatures of the complainant on some blank documents with the assurance that the claim will be processed. Complainant approached and requested the OPs to pay the amount of insured as per  terms and conditions of the insurance policy but OPs have been putting off the matter since long and no amount has been paid.
4. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs but all in vain.
5. The act and conduct of the OPs shows mal practice and unfair trade practice on their part and also deficiency in service, which caused great mental agony, tension, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience to the complainant.
6. On this background of the facts, the complainant has prayed for giving following directions to the OPs.

1. To pay Rs.17,85,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. the date of accident i.e. 20.3.2017 till realization.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and humiliation
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. 

Hence this complaint.

7. Upon notice OPs appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
8. In reply the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim  of the complainant has already been settled for a sum of Rs.14,84,500/- without registration certificate on net  of salvage basis but the complainant has failed to get the registration certificate of insured vehicle cancelled and to supply the OPs. The complainant has further failed to complete the post sanction formalities of the claim.

It is stated that the OPs are ready to pay a sum of Rs.14,84,500/- subject to completion of post sanctioned formalities; the insurance is a contract of indemnity. It has to be viewed as a normal contract as per the Indian Contract Act. In case of any violation, the contract becomes void .That complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present case and only the Civil Court is competent to decide the present complaint.

9. On merits, it is alleged that the complaint does not fall under the definition of the Act. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as the insured vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.
10. It is admitted that the OPs issued GCCV Private Carriers Package Policy for the vehicle in question.
11. It is stated that on receipt of intimation of loss dated 22.3.2017, the OPs immediately deputed approved IRDA Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh.Prosenjit Borthakur of Tinsukia, Assam for spot survey who submitted his report dated 3.4.2017 and Sh.S.K.Majumdar approved IRDA surveyor and loss assessor, Guwahati for final assessment who submitted his report dated 21.10.2017 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.1484500/- on net of salvage basis (without RC). After denying all other averments raised in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
12. Parties were offered opportunity to produce their evidence.
13. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA, affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C2 copy of legal notice, Exs.C3&C4,copies of postal receipts,Ex.C5 copy of RC and closed the evidence.
14. The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Mukesh Malhotra, Divisional Manager, Ex.OPB, affidavit of Prosenjit Borthakur,Surveyor, Ex.OP1 copy of survey report, Ex.OP2 copy of final survey report, Ex.OP3 copy of affidavit of Reethu Singh,Ex.OP4 copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule with conditions and closed the evidence.
15. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the record of the case,carefully.
16. Ld. counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and as detailed above.
17. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the reival contentions.
18. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant got insured his vehicle with OPs for the period 19.11.2016 to 18.11.2017. Ex.C1 also proves this fact. IDB value of the vehicle was Rs. 17,85,000/-The vehicle met with an accident on 20.3.2017, which is within the coverage period of the policy. Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs. The OPs got the loss assessed but they have not released the claim. The version of the OPs is that they are ready to pay a sum of Rs.14,84,500/- subject to completion of post sanctioned formalities. The complainant has claimed total loss of Rs.17,85,000/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle. OPs have mainly passed the claim of the vehicle as per the report of the surveyor, which is Ex.OP2. From the examination of this report, it is noticed that the surveyor has assessed the liability on three different counts. Firstly  on repair  basis , on total loss basis and on net of salvage basis.
19. As per report, the total loss on net of salve basis is assessed at Rs.14,84,500/-. As per total loss basis, the assessed amount is Rs.17,84,500/- and on repairing basis Rs.15,74,330.50.Surveyor has also assessed the value of wreck to be retained by the insured as Rs.3,00,000/-from the above three of liabilities.  It is apparent that the liability of the OPs is more than 75% of the IDV.
20. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is to be considered that it is a case of total loss. The complainant cannot be compelled to retain the wreck @ cost of Rs.3,00,000/- when he is not willing to accept. Therefore, the OPs are deficient in service. The complainant is entitled to IDV of the vehicle, which is Rs.17,85,000/- and he is under obligation to surrender the damaged vehicle.
21. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/-as costs. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.17,85,000/-alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and the complainant will be under obligation to surrender the damaged vehicle. It is also liability of the complainant to execute the documents required for transfer of the ownership in the name of the OPs. OPs will get ownership transferred in their name at their own costs.

The OPs are further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies 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.

The complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 9.1.2020        

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER