BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate son of late Sh. Tirlok Chand r/o House No.478, Phase 2^nd, Mohali (Pb.).

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.  The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted Attorney Regional Manager;

2.  The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Nangal Chowk, Chandigarh Road, Ropar (Punjab), through its Branch Manager;

3.  S. Gurmail Singh, Development Officer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., r/o Kothi No.3103, Sector 71, Mohali.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA         MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OPs 1 & 2

OP-3 exparte.

PER SHRI SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA, MEMBER

               Succinctly put, the complainant, who is a practicing advocate, got his 1997 model Maruti 800 AC car bearing Registration No.CH01-S-2002 insured with the OP on 25.3.2005 by assessing the market value of the said vehicle as Rs.90,000/- for which he paid Rs.2,746/- as premium. On 9.3.2006 when he parked his vehicle in the District Courts Complex the same was stolen regarding which and FIR was lodged on the same day.  It has been alleged that on 13.3.2006 the OPs were informed about the theft of the car; on 20.3.2006 OP-2 sent the claim form which were completed and submitted; on 26.3.2006 OP-2 deputed Piara Singh, Investigator who collected the photograph of the key of the stolen car; on 5.6.2006 he handed over the original key of the vehicle as well as the untraceable certificate.  It has been alleged that despite completing all the formalities the OPs after  taking lot of time approved the claim for only Rs.79,500/- and deducted a sum of Rs.10,500/- without giving any justification therefor. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]             In their written reply the OPs admitted that the car in question of the complainant was insured for an IDV of Rs.90,000/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy.    It has been specifically denied that the value of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.1,10,000/-. It has been submitted that the claim of the complainant was processed and approved for a sum of Rs.79,500/- and he was informed vide letter dated 16.7.2007, followed by reminder dated 25.7.2007, to complete the necessary formalities like transfer of the RC in the name of the company, subrogation letter and indemnity letter.  It has been denied that the claim was assessed arbitrarily and rather the same was approved as per the market value after calculating the depreciation on the value of the car. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for OPs and have also perused the record. 

5]             The Maruti 800 Car of complainant bearing Regd. No.CH-01-S-2002, Model 1997 insured with OP Insurance Company from 26.3.2005 to 25.3.2006 was stolen from District Court Complex, Chandigarh on 9.3.2006.  The theft of the car was report to the OP Insurance Company.  FIR was also lodged in this respect and simultaneously a claim wa submitted with OPs on 20.3.2006, but the same was approved for Rs.79,500/- only instead of the IDV amount of the insured car, which was Rs.90,000/-, thus deducting of Rs.10,500/- arbitrarily & illegally. 

6]             OPs have not disputed that the car was insured with them for Rs.90,000/- vide Policy Ann.R-1 effective from 26.3.2005 to 25.3.2006 and the claim of the complainant was processed & approved for a sum of Rs.79,500/-, information of which was given to the complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2007 (Ann.R-18) followed by reminder dated 25.7.2007 for completing the necessary formalities like transfer of the RC in the name of the company, subrogation letter and indemnity letter.

7]             However, the OPs have denied that the assessment of the loss was made arbitrarily and illegally and moresos that the value of the vehicle Rs.1,10,000/-, as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.  If for a moment, the contention of the complainant it taken to be true that the market value of the car on the date of insurance was Rs.1,10,000/- and the insurance was made for Rs.90,000/- on which he had paid a premium of Rs.2492/-.  Thus the amount of the premium on the insured value of Rs.1,10,000/- should have been more than the premium paid by the complainant for insuring his vehicle for Rs.90,000/-. The complainant, thus, had purposely made a profitable game of paying less premium to the OPs then to the actual premium to be paid by him as per the cost assessed by him of the car to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/-, which is bad in the eyes of law.  Deriving benefits once in the amount of premium, he cannot seek for another benefit as tried by him vide Annexure C-23 claiming that the market price of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.1,10,000/-. 

8]             Annexure R-1 is the policy of insurance showing that the car was an ordinary one, not A.C. and its IDV was Rs.90,000/-.  It shows that the complainant paid premium for insurance of the car treating its value at Rs.90,000/-.  All these facts however proved to be wrong when in the letter Annexure C-11, the complainant mentioned that his car was Air Conditioned. Naturally the price of car would have been more than Rs.90,000/- and this fact was mentioned by the complainant himself in his notice Annexure C-23 that the value of the car at the time of insurance was Rs.1,10,000/-. In para 1 of the complaint also the complainant has mentioned that the market value of his A.C, Maruti 800 Car was Rs.1,10,000/-.  It shows that the complainant got insured the car worth Rs.1,10,000/- by paying premium of Rs.90,000/- only.  The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that it is a case of under evaluation and they are entitled to deduct a proportionate amount, out of the claim amount of Rs.90,000/- due to which the amount of Rs.79,500/- only was payable.  The complainant however has not been able to prove that the value of his car was Rs.1,10,000/-. Even the insurance policy belies his claim.  We therefore do not agree to the contention of the complainant that the value of his car was Rs.1,10,000/- and therefore it cannot be said to be a case of under insurance.  Consequently the OPs are not entitled to deduct any such amount from the insurable amount of Rs.90,000/-.

9]             The question is whether the complainant is entitled to receive another amount of Rs.10,500/- on his stolen car or not.  Admittedly, the car was insured for IDV of Rs.90,000/- and the premium paid thereof was Rs.2492/- and the period insured was from 26.3.2005 to 25.3.2006.  The said car was stolen on 9.3.2006 from District Court Complex, Chandigarh, which clearly proves that the car had run for about 11 months & 14 days.  Certainly, thus the value of the car would have further depreciated from the date on which it was insured for Rs.90,000/- i.e. from 26.3.2005  upto 9.3.2006, the date on which it was stolen.  As per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy i.e. Annexure X (now marked by us) shows that 10% depreciation should have been made on the IDV value of the car in question, which was Rs.90,000/- on the date of insurance and as such Rs.9000/- should have been deducted from the said IDV value of the car by the OPs while deciding the claim of the complainant.  However, they just approved the claim for Rs.79,500/-, which in the above facts & circumstances, is held to be unjustified.  In our opinion the complainant is entitled to get Rs.81,000/- (Rs.90,000 - Rs.9,000/- (10%) = Rs.,81,000/-).

10]            As per Annexure C-8 the OP asked the complainant to produce untraceable certificate issued by the police authority and keys of the vehicle.  Since the untraceable report was not available the same could not be produced. The complainant was then asked vide Annexure C-11 to produce NCRB report also.  The untraceable report Annexure C-13 is dated 9.09.06 and the NCRB report is Annexure C-14 dated 11.08.06.  Since the vehicle has not been recovered and if the claim amount is to be paid to the complainant, the vehicle is to be transferred in favour of the OP and to issue letter of subrogation and letter of indemnity on a stamp paper worth Rs.3/-. The other requirements for payment of the claim amount were told to the complainant vide Annexure C-22 dated 16.07.07.  Instead of complying with the requirements the complainant shot the letter Annexure C-23 alleging that the market price of his vehicle was Rs.1,10,000/- which we have already held to be not tenable. The OP has produced the letters Annexure R-4 to R-18, R-20 and R-21 asking the complainant to comply with the requirements for disbursing the claim amount of Rs.79,500/- to him, but the complainant did not comply with the same.  Needless to mention that these are essential requirements for disbursement of amount of Rs.79,500/-.

11]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds.  The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.81,000/- (minus any such amount of Rs.79,500/- if paid to the complainant) and Rs.550/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the date on which the complainant complies with the requirements as asked for vide various letters mentioned above, written by the OP, to the complainant.  If the amount is not paid within the said period the complainant would be entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the amount since the filing of the present complaint i.e.15.07.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.