STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Smt.Saneh Lata wife of Sh.Vijay Aggerwal resident of House No.453, Sector 2, Panchkula.

        ……Appellant

V E R S U S

1.     The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

2.     The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO 15, Sector 30-D, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents.

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER,   PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh.Sanjay Bharti Gupta, Adv. for the appellant

                 Sh.Paul. S. Saini, Adv. for respondents.  

PER  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint.

2.                The facts, in brief are that, Saneh Lata was the owner of Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.HR-06N-0011, which was insured vide insurance policy No.31/07/01/00731, for the period from 23.05.2007 to 22.05.2008. She sold the said vehicle to one Sh. Ram Singh on 22.09.2007, but retained the registration No. and kept the insurance policy of the said car, in order to claim “No claim bonus” on the new insurance policy, for a new car, to be purchased by her.  Subsequently, the complainant purchased a new vehicle Mahindra Scorpio, bearing the same registration No.HR-06N-0011 and got it insured with OP, vide insurance policy No.353301/31/07/01/00002856 from 12.10.07 to 11.10.08. It was further stated that, the said vehicle was stolen on 23.04.2008 and an F.I.R., to this effect was also lodged with the Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula.  Thereafter, she submitted, all the relevant documents i.e. copy of F.I.R., untraced report etc., for release of the insurance claim, but to no effect. It was further stated that, non-settlement of the genuine claim of the complainant, amounted to deficiency, in service, by the OPs. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only).

3.                OP-1, in its reply, admitted the insurance of the vehicle in question. The main defence, of OP-1, was that the complainant sold the previous vehicle, to one Sh.Ram Singh along with the insurance policy. The said insurance policy was neither cancelled nor transferred.   It was further stated that, the complainant was enjoying “No Claim Bonus” on two vehicles for the period from 12.10.07 to 22.05.2008. It was further stated by the OPs, that as the complainant had taken 25% “No Claim Bonus” by fraudulent means, and, therefore, all the benefits, under section 1 of the policy stood cancelled. It was further stated that the complainant was asked to deposit, the NCB recovery of Rs.4570/- and complete other formalities, but she failed to do so, for the reasons best known to her.  It was denied, that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, by the OPs, to the complainant, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. All other averments were denied.

4.                The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and, record, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that during the course of pendency of the complaint, the complete documents were submitted before the District Forum by the complainant, and claim in the sum of Rs. Rs.6,81,100/-, was  released in favour of the complainant, vide cheque No.120779 dated 15.07.2010 and, as such, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, by the OPs, to the complainant.

6.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the complainant (now appellant), claiming interest.

7.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case carefully. 

8.                The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant had filed the claim, after the vehicle was stolen, vide claim letter dated 02.05.2008, Annexure R-1. He further submitted that even Annexure R-3 dated 05.12.2008, in response to the letter received from the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, was sent by the complainant. He further submitted that, even legal notice, was served upon the OPs, but they did not settle the claim, in question. He further submitted that, in case, any of the documents were required by the OPs, they could have asked the complainant, immediately, after the claim was lodged for the loss of the vehicle. He further submitted that the case of the Ops, that all the documents were not delivered, in time, and were delivered during the pendency of the complaint, and, as such, she was not entitled to any such interest, as the amount of Rs.6,81,100/- had already been paid to her, is not correct. He further submitted that the complainant was harassed and caused mental agony, by non-settling the claim, in time. He further submitted that the complainant was entitled to interest, on the amount, from the date of filing of the claim, until the same was paid, but the District Forum, was wrong, in holding that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs. He further submitted that, the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that, since the documents were submitted by the complainant, during the pendency of the complaint, and, on receipt thereof, her claim was immediately settled, and, a sum of Rs.6,81,100/- after deducting Rs.1000/- under excess clause, was paid to her vide cheque No.120779 dated 15.07.2010, the OPs were not at all deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant, and, as such, they were not liable to pay any interest. He further submitted that, the order of the District Forum, being legal, and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, recorded hereinafter.   No doubt, the complainant immediately after the theft of the vehicle, lodged the FIR. Vide letter dated 01.10.2007, Annexure V,  she sent intimation, that she had sold the Scorpio car, and the transfer papers will be submitted lateron. Vide letter dated 20.11.2008, Annexure C-10, she sent the untraced report. She also sent claim intimation letter R-1 dated 02.05.2008, but the complete documents, had not been supplied for the same. Vide letter R-4 dated 11.02.2010, the complainant was asked by the OPs to send them transferred RC, in the name of the Bank; deposit NCB recovery of Rs.4570/-; submit clearance certificate from the financer; and letter of subrogation indemnity and untraced report, as on date. Had, these documents been supplied to the OPs/respondents, by the complainant/ appellant earlier, the matter would have been different. In that event, any delay, on the part of the OPs, to settle the claim of the complainant/appellant, would have certainly entitled her to get interest, on the amount paid to her. It is evident from para 7 of the order of the District Forum, that these documents were submitted by the complainant, to the OPs, during the pendency of the complaint on 21.10.2010. It was, in the absence of such documents, that the insurance claim of the complainant could not be settled immediately. After receiving all the documents, a cheque of Rs.6,81,100/-, after deducting Rs.1000/-, under excess clause, has already been handed over to the Counsel for the complainant. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in holding that, there was no deficiency, in rendering proper service, on the part of the OPs. The complainant was, thus, rightly held not entitled to any interest.

11.             The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.             Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced.

16^th ,May  2011.                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                    [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

            PRESIDENT

                                    Sd/-

            [NEENA SANDHU]

            MEMBER

Rg