DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 63 of 07-03-2007<br /> Decided on : 07-06-2007<br /> <br /> Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Telu Ram C/o S.K. Spare Parts, Near R.S. Petrol Pump, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bank Street, Bathinda through its Senior Divisional Manager.<br /> ...Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Raman Khattar, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Bansal, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complaint is the owner of Maruti Zen Car of Model 2004 bearing registration No. PB-03L/3755. It was comprehensively insured by him with the opposite party vide cover Note No. 991735 for the period from 31.12.04 to 30.12.05. On 26.10.05 at about 11.00 A.M. it had met with an accident on Dabwali Road, Near Village Gurusar Sainewala. Car was being driven by the complainant himself who has genuine valid and effective driving licence to drive the Car. Intimation regarding the accident was given to the opposite party. Car was brought to Garrage/Workshop of M/s. Modern Motors, Bathinda, authorised dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., for necessary repairs. Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed by the opposite party to assess the loss. Vehicle was inspected by him at M/s. Modern Motors, near T.V Tower, Mansa Road, Bathinda. Photographs were taken and loss was assessed on 26.10.05. Surveyor had got the estimate of loss from M/s. Modern Motors. Report was submitted by him to the opposite party. He (complainant) got the car repaired from M/s. Modern Motors which had issued repair bill to the tune of Rs. 13,068/- vide cash memo/Job No. 010401 dated 27.10.05. All the requisite formalities for the assessment of the loss have been completed. Despite repeated reminders, opposite party had failed to settle the claim which was required to be settled within two months from the date of intimation. Act and conduct of the opposite party caused him mental tension, agony and monetary loss. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this forum to the opposite party to pay him Rs. 13,068/- being repair charges: Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and monetary loss; Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses and interest @ 18% P.A. on the aforesaid amount till realisation.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy; he has not sent No Claim Bonus confirmation from his previous insurer for the year 2003-2004 and he has failed to send discharge voucher. On merits, it admits that complainant is the owner of the car and it was comprehensively got insured with it for the period from 31.12.04 to 30.12.05. It does not specifically deny the fact that car had met with an accident on 26.10.05 and intimation was given to it. Similarly there is no specific denial about the fact that car was being driven by the complainant himself who has valid and effective driving licence. Appointment of surveyor and assessment of the loss by him stand admitted. It shows readiness and willingness to make payment if required documents are produced. Its allegation is that complainant negligently and intentionally did not produce the relevant record before it despite the fact that requests were made to him on several occasions. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments in the complaint, complainant has submitted in evidence his affidavit ( Ex.C-1), photocopy of Insurance Cover Note (Ex. C-2), photocopy of duplicate cash memo (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letter dated 12.4.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 12.4.07 (Ex. C-5) and photocopy of letter dated 9.5.07 (Ex. C-6).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party photocopy of Motor Surveyor report (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of letter dated 12.4.07 (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 6. Factual position does not remain in dispute in this case. They are that car of the complainant was comprehensively insured for the period from 31.12.04 to 30.12.05 vide insurance cover note, copy of which is Ex. C-2. It had met with an accident on 26.10.05. Intimation regarding the occurrence was given to the opposite party. Car was brought to the Workshop of M/s. Modern Motors, Bathinda. M/s. G.S. Associates, Valuer and Loss Assessor was deputed by the opposite party. It submitted its report on 7.11.05, copy of which is Ex. R-1 through its Er. Gurjinder Singh, He assessed the loss as under :<br /> Cost of labour assessed Rs. 2916.00<br /> Cost of parts assessed Rs. 8522.00<br /> <br /> Rs. 11438.00<br /> Less Excess Clause Rs. 1000.00 <br /> Rs. 10438.00<br /> 7. Complainant got the car repaired from M/s. Modern Motors, Maruti's authorised service station. Copy of the cash memo for repairs is Ex. C-3 according to which a sum of Rs. 13,068/- was paid. Claim has not so far been settled.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Khattar, learned counsel for the complainant are that complainant has paid Rs. 13,068/- to M/s. Modern Motors, which is Maruti's authorised service Station, but the surveyor has illegally assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 10,438/-. Even surveyor in his report has recorded the estimate of loss as Rs. 13,399/- in para No. 12 of the report. Vehicle of the complainant was previously insured with the opposite party vide cover note No. 028272 for the period from 31.12.03 to 30.12.04. Thereafter car was got insured from the opposite party vide cover note., copy of which is Ex. C-2. Opposite party was illegally demanding No Claim Bonus confirmation and discharge voucher on the basis of the letters dated 12.4.07, copies of which are Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5. Opposite party was required to settle the claim within reasonable time and it has failed to do it. Only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid before this forum on 4.6.07.<br /> 9. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that complainant was required to send No Claim Bonus confirmation from his previous insurer for the year 2003-2004 and discharge voucher. Since, he did not submit these documents, claim could not be settled. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has already been paid to the complainant on 4.6.07 through cheque No. 213939 dated 1.6.07 of Punjab National Bank. In these circumstances, complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 11. Opposite party has not placed on record Terms and Conditions of the policy to show that complainant is bound to submit No Claim Bonus confirmation and discharge voucher and that in the absence of them, claim cannot be settled by it. Endorsement at the top of the insurance cover note, copy of which is Ex. C-2 has been made showing that car was previously insured with the opposite party vide insurance cover note No. 028372 expiring on 30.12.04. From the letter of the Branch Manager of the opposite party to the Divisional Manager, copy of which is Ex. C-6, fact that car was insured for the period from 31.12.03 to 30.12.04 with the opposite party is established. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that fact regarding No Claim Bonus was to be confirmed, opposite party could confirm it from its own record particularly when for the period from 31.12.03 to 31.12.04 car was got insured from it by the complainant. Complainant cannot be said to be legally bound to submit discharge voucher for settling his claim. In such a situation, contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong is repelled. Opposite party was required to settle the claim within two months from the submission of the report of the surveyor. In this view of the matter, we get support of the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. M K J Corporation III(1996) CPJ 8 (SC). Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the Case of Sushanta Kumar Roy Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2003(3) CLT 277. No sufficient cause has been shown by opposite party for not settling the claim. Ground on which inordinate delay has been caused for settlement appears baseless and unfounded. Accordingly, there is deficiency in service on its part.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. No doubt, complainant has placed on record copy of the cash memo of M/s. Modern Motors according to which a sum Rs. 13,068/-has been paid towards repair of the car. Net amount assessed by the surveyor is Rs. 10,438/-. Report of the surveyor is detailed one. It is acceptable except regarding excess clause on account of which Rs. 1,000/- has been deducted out of Rs. 11,438/- particularly when opposite party has not submitted terms and conditions of the policy. This amount is not liable to be deducted by the surveyor out of the assessed amount. Surveyor while assessing the loss has touched all the pros and cons. Instead of allowing Rs. 13,068/-, we deem it fit to hold that opposite party should have settled the claim for Rs. 11,438/- instead of Rs. 10,438/- especially when it does not stand established that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is deductible on account of excess clause. Out of Rs. 10,438/- expected value of salvage is Rs. 400/-. This amount of Rs. 400/- deserves to be reduced from Rs. 11,438/- and as such, net payable amount comes to Rs. 11,038/- . Opposite party becomes liable to pay Rs. 11,038/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 8.1.06 ( after two months after the report of the surveyor as it did not settle the claim within this period) till 3.6.07. Amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid by the opposite party on 4.6.07. Hence further direction deserves to be given to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,038/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 4.6.07 till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and monetary loss. In our view there is no case to allow it in the face of the relief going to be accorded as above, particularly in view of the authority in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur (Minor) and others 2002(2) CLT 646 wherein Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab held that interest is not granted within the contract between the insured and insurer but within the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act on deficiency in rendering service being established for compensating the complainant. Held accordingly. <br /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay interest on Rs. 11,038/- @9% P.A. from 8.1.06 till 3.6.07.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 1038/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 4.6.07 till payment.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 07-06-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> .