| ORDER | Complainant Rajeev Kant through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make remaining payment of Rs.2,00,000/- qua his claim immediately in terms of the Insurance Policy alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of accident of the vehicle till actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongiwth Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice. - The case of the complainant in brief is that he was the registered owner of Car Swift (VDI) bearing registration No.PB-06-S-8908 which was fully insured with the opposite parties. On 5.12.2014 he alongwith one Jai Gopal was going to Chandigarh on his vehicle. At about 7 A.M. when they reached at Adda Satnaur, Badesron and were crossing a Canter, then a Canter bearing No.PB-32-J-8595 came at a high speed from Garhshankar side and hit the same with his car due to which he and Jai Gopal received injuries and the car was badly damaged in this accident. The matter was reported to the police of P.S.Mahilpur and the police registered criminal case vide FIR No.133 dated 5.12.2014 U/s 279/337/427 IPC against driver of the Canter namely Nirmal Singh. The matter was also reported to the opposite parties and they also deputed their surveyor and the loss of the vehicle was assessed as total loss which was to the tune of Rs.4,32,000/- but the opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.4,15,000/- to him as per settlement arrived between the parties and he gave his consent for the same. He has further pleaded that to his utter surprise the opposite parties had paid only Rs.2,15,000/- on 15.4.2015 to him and did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- till today despite the repeated requests and personal visits made by him to the office of the opposite parties and a week back the opposite parties refused to make payment of the remaining amount. The opposite parties have withheld his payment of due amount illegally, arbitrarily and without any reasonable cause or excuse. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein that the insured appointed IRDA approved surveyor Manipal Singh to assess the said loss. Loss was assessed to Rs.4,19,686/-. The insured after considering the claim decided to settle the claim on salvage loss basis. The complainant had given consent to settle the claim on salvage loss basis. It was further submitted that the opposite party facilitated for finding prospective wreck buyer. In this process three wreck quotations were received for Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. The said claim was processed with the highest bid. The net liability of the opposite party is Rs.2,14,000/- as per the calculations shown in the consent letter and the same was accepted by the complainant. The said sum of money was paid by this opposite party vide cheque No.855174. Hence this opposite party has rightfully honoured the claim of this opposite party. It was next submitted that they have received a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- from opposite party and vide this complainant is claiming for the wreck value of Rs.2,00,000/- which has to paid by the wreck buyer. So the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the same as the opposite party is not a party to the said contract between the wreck buyer and the complainant. Hence this present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party. It was further submitted that the opposite party has rightfully settled the claim of the complainant by making a payment of Rs.2,14,000/- the remaining amount claimed by the complainant is that of wreck which has to be paid by the wreck buyer for that this opposite party cannot be made liable as this opposite party is not a party to the same. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Aneesh Bhaskaran Ex.OP-1 along with other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties. 6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute pertaining to the present complaint stands duly settled vides the mutually agreed upon settlement for an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- out of which the initial payment of Rs.2.15 Lac stands already credited in the Bank A/c of the complainant and the OP insurers have duly consented (before the Forum) to pay the balance amount Rs.2.00 Lac upon receipt of the Salvage/wreckage of the accidented vehicle lying in the PS Mahilpur, but the legal possession/supardari of which lies with the complainant. 7. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to handover the wreckage/accidented salvage of the insured car to the OP insurers within 30 days of the receipt of these orders and who in turn shall pay the balance claim amount of Rs.2.00 Lac within 10 days of the compliance of the present orders by the present complainant otherwise the aggregate amount shall attract interest @ 9 % PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. The parties shall however, bear their own costs, here. 8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. (Naveen Puri) President. ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur) JUNE, 16, 2016 Member. *MK* | |
