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

========

Tilak Raj Pathak, Vill. and PO Ispur, Tehsil and Distt. Una (H.P.)

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  The National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office-II, SCO 337-40, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Chief Regional Manager.

2.  The National Insurance Company Ltd., 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata, Through its Chairman cum-Managing Director.

3.  The National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch office, Hamirpur Road, Opp. Subhidha Palace, Una (H.P)

                                  ……Opposite Part

CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. D.C. Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

OPs exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,   MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant on 30.12.2008 got his vehicle insured by OP-1 vide cover note no. 043200 dated 30.12.2008 for sum of Rs.7,60,000/- after applying depreciation. The said insurance policy was valid from 30.12.2008 to 29.12.2009. On 27.03.2009 the said vehicle was involved in an accident and he informed the OP about the accident and loss suffered by the vehicle.  The OP-2 appointed M/s Arora Associates of Chandigarh for making assessment of the loss suffered in the accident.  Spot survey was also got conducted by the OP through surveyor Mr. Satish Kaushik. Since the loss of the accident was major and was beyond repairs, the same was declared as total loss by the surveyor deputed by the OP. The OP pressed the complainant to accept Rs.7,25,000/- instead of Rs.7,60,000/-. On 12.10.2009 he received a cheque of Rs.4,25,000/from the OP.  When he contacted the OP for the same, the OP told him that the balance amount would be released when the damaged vehicle is sold. After that the complainant made several oral as well as written requests to the OP for settlement of his claim but all in vain.  On 08.12.2009, he was stunned to received a reply form the OP vide letter dated 8.12.2009 that his claim had been paid as full and final as discussed with the insurers. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. The Learned Counsel for the OPs appeared only till 8.03.2010 and filed evidence by way of affidavits of Sh. P.C. Thakur, Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. and Amarjit Singh, Surveyor. After that none appeared on behalf of the OPs.  Accordingly the OPs were proceeded ex-parte. 

3.    In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that the policy alongwith the terms and conditions were dully supplied to the complainant. As soon as the complainant intimated the accident, the surveyor Sh. Satish Kasuhik was deputed for conducting the spot survey and thereafter the surveyor M/s Arora Associates was deputed to assess the loss of the damages vehicle.  The loss of Rs.4,25,000/- on net of salvage basis was assessed by the surveyors and this amount was received by the complainant as full and final settlement and the complainant was never pressed to accept Rs.7,25,000/-. The complainant has voluntarily given the consent of Rs.4,25,000/- vide letter dated 18.06.2009 as full and final settlement. The value of the salvage was assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.3,33,993/- and the less policy excess clause of Rs.1000/- was applied and the complainant agreed to retain the salvage for the selling of the same in the open market for fetching more value of the said salvage. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

5.             During the pendency of the case, the complainant has filed rejoinder, in which it has been admitted by the complainant that he had received a total sum of Rs.7,25,000/-(Rs.4,25,000/- through cheque by the OPs and Rs.3,00,000/- by selling the salvage on 27.12.2009).

6.             The main grouse of the complainant is that his vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- whereas he has received only Rs.7,25,000/- therefore the OPs are liable to pay him the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest. He has also pleaded that he never agreed to the accept offer of Rs.4,25,000/- after deducting Depreciation, salvage & excess as settled by insurer’s surveyor and to retain the salvage for Rs.3,33,953/. On the other, hand the contention of the OPs is that the complainant himself had agreed to the offer of Rs.4,25,000/- after deducting Dep., salvage & excess as settled by insurer’s surveyor and to retain the salvage for Rs.3,33,953/. In support of their contention, the OPs have placed on record Annexure R-5 as the copy of the consent letter dated 18.06.2009, which shows that the complainant had accepted the offer of the full and final settlement of the claim for Rs.4,25,000/- after deducting Dep., salvage & excess as per policy of the claim as settled by insurers surveyor.  Annexure R-4 is the Final Survey Report of M/s Arora Associates in which the assessment of loss reads as under:

Payable amount on Total Loss basis                      = Rs.7,59,953/-

Less: Salvage value of vehicle as left with insured  = Rs.3,33,953/-

Less policy clause                                               =  Rs.1,000/-

Net Liability                                                       =  Rs.4,25,000/-

7.           Annexure R-5 is the copy of the consent letter dated 18.06.2009, which shows that the complainant had accepted the offer of full and final settlement of the claim for Rs.4,25,000 after deducting Dep., salvage & excess as per policy of above said clause as settled by insurers surveyor. In para no. 10 of the complaint, it has been admitted by the complainant that he had received a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- from the OPs vide cheque no. 42184 dated 12.10.2009.  Moreover, Annexure R-6 also clearly shows that the complainant had signed the loss voucher for a sum Rs.4,25,000/- without any protest. Therefore, in our view, we cannot hold the OPs for any unfair trade practice on their part.

8.           The complainant in para no. 10 of the complaint has admitted that the salvage was sold by him for Rs.3,00,000/- on  27.12.2009. As per the consent letter (Annexure R-5), the salvage was retained by the complainant for a sum of Rs.3,33,953/-. The consent letter Annexure R-5 was signed by the complainant on 18.06.2009. Thereafter, if the salvage was sold on 27.12.2009 by the complainant himself, it was the fault of the complainant not of the OPs. Therefore, the OPs cannot be burdened for any further loss which might have been caused to the salvage after 18.06.2009, the date on which the complainant accepted to retain the salvage.  Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the salvage was sold on 27.12.2009 and that too for Rs.3,00,000/-, will not give any strength to the  present case.

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The OPs have rightly indemnified the loss on net of salvage basis with due consent of the complainant.  There is no merit in the present complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

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