Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/241/2022

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Ajay Chaudhary - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Devliyal

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 241 / 2022

 

National Insurance Company Limited

Regional Office, Rajpur Road

Dehradun through its Regional Manager

…… Appellant / Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Sh. Ajay Chaudhary S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary

R/o 27, Friends Colony, Post Office Gurukul Kangri

District Haridwar

…… Respondent / Complainant

 

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Devliyal and Sh. Vijay Pal Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

Sh. Akshay Kumar Chawla, Learned Counsel for Respondent

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 06/04/2023

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 176 of 2020; Sh. Ajay Chaudhary Vs. General Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and others, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant – opposite parties was directed to pay sum of Rs. 6,90,523/- to the respondent – complainant towards claim amount together with interest @6% p.a. from 01.09.2020, i.e., the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment, besides Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses & counsel fee.

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the respondent – complainant had purchased Tata Nexon XM 1.2 RTN BS-4 from I.S.M. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Haridwar.  The said vehicle was allotted registration No. UK08-AU-1167 and the same was insured with the appellant – insurance company for the period from 02.05.2019 to 01.05.2020.  During the currency of the insurance policy, on 09.01.2020, the vehicle was returning from Joshimath and near Devprayag, there was traffic jam and all of a sudden, boulders fell on the vehicle, causing complete damage to the vehicle.  The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged with the nearest Police Station and intimation was also given to the insurance company, who in turn, appointed surveyor.  The surveyor visited the spot and inspected the vehicle and assured that he will submit his report with the insurance company at the earliest.  The complainant visited the office of the insurance company on several occasions, but his claim was not settled.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

 

3.       The appellant – insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that upon receipt of intimation regarding accident of insured vehicle,              Sh. Himanshu Sharma was appointed as investigator, whereafter     Sh. Amarpreet Singh Anand was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss, who submitted their report with the insurance company and found the accident as genuine.  Through letters dated 30.07.2020 and 28.09.2020 as well as e-mails dated 30.07.2020 and 20.10.2020, the complainant was requested to submit original policy; RC duly cancelled; NEFT detail (Cancelled Cheque) and B-17 (Discharge Voucher) duly filled and signed, which he failed to submit, hence the claim was closed as “No Claim”.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

4.       After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2022, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.

 

5.       We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

 

6.       It is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle was insured with the appellant – insurance company for the period from 02.05.2019 to 01.05.2020 at an IDV of Rs. 6,90,523/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the insured vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  It is also not disputed that in the accident, the vehicle was totally damaged.

 

7.       The insurance company has not pleaded breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant, nor the claim has been denied by the insurance company on any such ground.  The only plea / ground taken by the insurance company in the written statement was that inspite of several letters /  e-mails, the complainant did not submit the required documents, hence the claim could not be settled.

 

8.       The insurance company has appointed Sh. Amarpreet Singh Anand, surveyor & loss assessor, as surveyor for assessing the loss.  The said surveyor submitted his report dated 29.05.2020 (Paper    Nos. 27 to 42) with the insurance company, wherein he has assessed the loss on net of salvage basis (without RC) for sum of Rs. 5,99,523/- and the surveyor has recommended to settle the claim on net of salvage basis (without RC).  The record shows that on the basis of the above report, the insurance company has approved the complainant’s claim for Rs. 5,99,523/- and the complainant was informed through letter dated ………….. (date not legible), copy whereof is Paper     No. 46, that the competent authority has approved his claim for sum of Rs. 5,99,523/- on total loss basis without RC and he was requested to submit original policy; RC duly cancelled; NEFT detail (Cancelled Cheque) and B-17 (Discharge Voucher) duly filled and signed, which he failed to submit, hence the claim was closed as “No Claim”.  The record shows that the complainant through his e-mail dated 19.08.2020 sent to the insurance company, has written that he is not ready to accept the aforesaid amount, as he was having zero depth insurance.  Since the complainant was not ready to accept the offered amount of Rs. 5,99,523/-, there was no occasion on his part to submit the documents sought for by the insurance company, hence the complainant can not be said to be at fault.

 

9.       So far as quantum is concerned, while awarding claim to the tune of Rs. 6,90,523/-, the District Commission has opined that the insurance company is ready to pay the aforesaid amount.  The said observation of the District Commission is beyond record.  The District Commission at page No. 6 of the impugned judgment and order has quoted paragraph No. 14 of the written statement and after quoting the same, has concluded that the insurance company is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 6,90,523/- to the complainant.  There is no such version in the written statement of the insurance company.  However, as stated above, the insurance company has offered an amount of         Rs. 5,99,523/- to the complainant and even taking that into consideration, there was no justification on the part of the District Commission in awarding the IDV of the vehicle amounting to         Rs. 6,90,523/-, without deducting the value of salvage and passing any order regarding registration certificate of the vehicle.  As is stated above, the surveyor in his report has assessed the loss on net of salvage basis (without RC) to the tune of Rs. 5,99,523/-, which amount is fit to be awarded to the complainant, in view of the fact that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record having been produced by the complainant to discard the assessment of loss made by the surveyor.  It would not be out of place to mention here that while assessing the liability of the insurance company on net of salvage basis (without RC) to the tune of Rs. 5,99,523/-, the surveyor has deducted Rs. 1,000/- towards excess clause and has also deducted Rs. 15,000/- towards value of the salvage, stating that it is the best offer received till date, if the salvage was to be sold by the insured.  In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things that the complainant is held entitled to the salvage of the vehicle.  The surveyor has further deducted Rs. 75,000/- as cost of missing parts and after deducting the above sums, the net liability of the insurance company was assessed to the tune of Rs. 5,99,523/-.  As stated above, there being no cogent and reliable evidence against the report of the surveyor, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 5,99,523/-.    

 

10.     For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is fit to be partly allowed, reducing the amount of claim awarded by the District Commission to Rs. 5,99,523/-.  Rest of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission regarding award of interest etc., is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.

 

11.     Appeal is partly allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is modified to the extent that the amount of Rs. 6,90,523/- awarded by the District Commission towards claim, is reduced to Rs. 5,99,523/-.  Rest of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is confirmed.  Costs of the appeal made easy.

 

12.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K