ORDER

PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT


The complainant is the registered owner of a car TATa Indica bearing
no. HR -55-DT-0407. He had purchased a policy of insurance in respect
of the aforesaid car which valid for the period 18/10/2008 to
17/10/2009 for an IDV of Rs. 2,20,000/-.  It is alleged that on
15.9.2009 , the car met with an accident and was completely   burnt.
The OP had  appointed a surveyor. Initially, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-
was offered to the complainant for the loss as compensation despite
the fact that the car was insured for an IDV of Rs 2,20,000/- .  The
OP had also sent a letter to the complainant dated 30.7.2009 offereing
a second hand car in lien of the insured one.   The complainat had
refused the offer whereafter the OP insurance company had closed the
case and had refused to settle the claim.  The complainant has alleged
that the act of the OP amounted to deficiency in service and has
prayed for the redresal of his grievance.

   The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement.

  Paras 1 and 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement
are relevant for the purposes of the decision of this case and are
reproduced as  under:-

1.That the complaint of the complainant deserve dismissal as the same
is not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant himself
failed to give his consent to the settkment offered by the O.P. to
replace the vehicle with same make, model and year of manufacture
which is evident from the letter dated 3-O7-2009 already filed by the
complainant before this Hon’ble Forum.
3. That the complaint of the complainan deserves dismissal as the
complainant is not entitled to the reli, f as prayed in the present
complaint in view of the condition no.3 )of the policy which reads as
under: -
“The company may at its own ‘ption repair reinstate or replace the
vehicle or part thereof: nd/or its accessories or may pay in cash the
amount of loss or damage and the liability of the company shall not
exceed Thus in view of the aforesaid condil.ion the O.P. offered to
replace the vehicle of same make, model and year but the complainant
failed to give any consent to the O.P. in this regard. So far as the
question of making cash is concerned, the O.P.is only liable to pay
the actual loss as per market value of the insured vehicle at the time
of accident/fire and the complainant is not entitled to the sum
assured amount i.e. Rs. 2,20,000/-. etc.





Paras 2 and 7 of the reply on merit of the written statement are also
reproduced as under:-

2. That para no.2 of the complaint is ma tter of record. However, it
is submitted that the value of the insurd vehicle to the tune of Rs.
2,20,000/- was assessed by the O.P. in October, 2008 and therefore
present value of the insured vehicle in the year 2009 is not same as
was in the year 2008.

7. That para no.7 of the complaint is admitted except that the
condition of the car was not satisfactory. It is denied that the car
offered to the complainant in replacement of insured vehicle was not
satisfactory. It is submitted that the condition of the car offered by
the O.P. to the complainant was satisfactory as per the model, make
and year of the insured vehicle. However so far as the question of
cash is concerned, the O.P. is only liable to pay the actual market
value of the insured vehicle and not the value which was existing at
the time of commencement of insurance policy in October, 2008. The
contents of para no.1 to 4 of the P. O.s may be read as part and
parcel of this para as the same are not being repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.



The OP insurance company has claimed that there are no merits in this
complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.  It has prayed
accordingly.

   We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

  Of late, it has been noticed that there has been a tendency on the
part of the insurance company to  repudiate the claim loidged by the
insured on one pretext or the other.  Courts on a no. of occasions
have impressed upon the officers  who deal with the passgage of claims
to act in a manner  which advances the purpose of the insurance
contract.  It has been impressed upon these officers to act in the
right perspective in order to settle the genuine claims of the
consumers.    Coming  to   the facts of the present complaint , it
appears to us that the officer of the insurance company were inclined
not to compensate the insured fully  for the loss and in the result
earn  some gain for the insurance company.    The mindset of the
officers dealing with the passage of this claim is reflected from the
written statement wherein it has been stated that the insurance
company was not bound to indemnify the loss of the insured on the IDV
but was liable to pay the acutals loss as per market value of the car
in 2009.  In para 2 of the reply on merits,  the insurance company has
stated that even though the value of the insured vehicle was assessed
to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/-  ,  the value of the vehicle in the year
2009 was not the same as it was at the time of entering into the
insurance contract in the year 2008.  It is also alleged in the
written statement that the complainant had  not maintained the vehicle
properly as a reuslt of which it had caught fire and was completely
burnt  .It is, therefore, clear that the insurance company did not
want to compensate the insured on the Insured declared Value .They
rather were of the opnion, that since the market value of the insured
vehicle had depreciated, the insured should be compensated at a lesser
amount .  This amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of the
insurance company. The value of the insured vehicle had been assessed
as Rs. 2,20,000/-  at the time of entering into the insurance contract
on which the required premium was paid by the complainant .  Having
accepted premium at the above rate , it did not lay in the mouth of
the insurance company  to say that the compensation has to be given at
a lesser rate.  The  complainant was , therefore, justified in not
consenting to the claim which was being offere in cash or the
replacement of the vehicle.  The complainant would naturally have
gained the impression that the replaced vehicle would also be of the
lesser value at which the compensation in money was being offered.
We, therefore, hold that the OP insurance company was deficient in
rendring services to the complainant.  It ought to have offered
compensation to the complainant on the insured declare value rather
than harping on the plea that the value of the insured vehicle had
depreciated at the time of the accident.  We, therefore, direct the OP
insurance compay as under:-

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,20,00- along with interest @
10% p.a. from the date of institution of the preent complaint i.e.
9.4.2010 till payment.

2.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for
pain  & agony suffered by him.

1.  Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000 ,/- as cost of litigation.

     The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the
date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest
on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP1 fails to
comply with this order, the complainant



may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27
of the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

    File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on....................