PER SHRI. S. G. CHABUKSWAR – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) This is a complaint for the reliefs of recovery of insurance declared value on total loss basis with interest @ 12% from the date of submission of claim form, parking charges at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. from January, 2008, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation of mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- cost of the complaint.
2) The case of the Complainant in short is as under –
The Complainant was the owner of vehicle Hyundai Santro Model 2006 bearing Registration No.MH-03-AF-1206. The Opposite Party issued Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy bearing No.110601/31/06/01/00011994 of said vehicle for the period 18/08/2006 to 17/08/2007 for sum of Rs.3,71,569/-. On 21/12/2006 at about 3.15 a.m. the said vehicle met with an accident at Mira Road. The Complainant was also injured in the accident and was immediately admitted in the Hospital. He could not immediately intimate the accidental damages to the Opposite Party, but he could do the same with the help of his relatives and insurance agent. The vehicle in question was shifted to the authorized garage M/s. Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Andheri Workshop. Opposite Party had registered the claim of the Complainant and allotted number as 31/06/08737 and deputed their panel Surveyor to assess the loss to M/s. Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, Opposite Party had appointed M/s. S.B. Nalluri & Associates to investigate in details about the accident. The Complainant had submitted the required explanation and documents as sought by the Opposite Party and their investigator even then the claim of the Complainant for the total loss of his brand new vehicle is neither settled nor repudiated by the Opposite Party till filing of the complaint. Opposite Party is guilty in rendering deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for the reliefs mentioned in above para no.1.
3) The Opposite Party failed to file written version, hence, complaint proceeded without written version of Opposite Party on 09/12/2013. The Complainant has submitted his affidavit of evidence on 04/02/2014. The Complainant has produced documents copy of insurance policy, R.C Book, estimate of repairs prepared by M/s. Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd., copies of correspondence with Opposite Party and copy of judgment possessed in summary Criminal Case No.1039/2007, inquest panchanama, police statement, etc.
4) We heard Shri. Subhas Chaubal, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Smt. Kalpana Trivedi, Ld.Advocate for the respondent. The Complainant has also filed notes of argument.
5) The Complainant was the owner of the vehicle Hyundai Santro Model 2006 bearing Registration No.MH-03-AF-1206. Opposite Party issued insurance policy of the said vehicle for the period 18/08/2006 to 17/08/2007 for Rs.3,71,569/-. On 21/12/2006 the vehicle in question met with serious accident at Mira Road, near Amber Palace Hotel. The Complainant was also injured in the said accident and he was admitted in the hospital. The vehicle in question shifted to the authorized garage M/s. Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd., at Andheri Workshop. The Complainant submitted the claim with the Opposite Party. Opposite Party deputed the Surveyor to assess the loss to M/s. Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party and also appointed M/s. S.B. Nalluri & Associates to investigate in detail about the accident. The Complainant has submitted the explanation and documents as asked by the Opposite Party and Investigator. As per R.C. Book the vehicle in question was standing in the name of the Complainant. As per the copy of insurance policy the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party for the period 18/08/2006 & 17/8/2007 for sum of Rs.3,71,569/-. On 04/01/2007 Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd. examined the vehicle in question and reported that there is total loss of said vehicle. The above evidence, documents and, pleadings of the Complainant remained unrebutted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Complainant. In view of this we hold that Complainant is entitled to the insurance declared value of the vehicle in question.
6) Smt. Kalpana Trivedi, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has argued that salvage value may kindly be considered. We have gone through the following two judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission.
In Dharmendra Goel V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) CTJ 917 (Supreme Court) (CP) case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that –
“It is admitted position that the vehicle had been declared to be a total loss by the surveyor appointed by the company through the value of the vehicle on total loss basis had been assessed at Rs.1,80,800/-. We are, in the circumstances, of the opinion that as the company itself had accepted the value of the vehicle at Rs.3,54,000/- on 13th February, 2002, it could not claim that the value of the vehicle on total loss basis on 10th September, 2002 i.e. on the date of the accident was only Rs.1,80,000/-.”
In Rekha Jain V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2012) CPJ 48 (NC) case the Hon’ble National Commission observed that –
“While issuing the policy on 31/12/1997, the value of the vehicle was put at Rs.1,75,000/-. Vehicle was stolen after eight months of the taking of the policy on 29/08/1998. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the Respondent would be liable to pay Rs.1,75,000/- being the Insured Declared Value (IDV)at the time of taking the policy after deducting 10% towards depreciation. After deducting 10% towards deprecation the amount payable comes to Rs.1,57,500/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,60,000/-.”
7) In the present case the Opposite Party issued policy of the vehicle in question which was valid from 18/08/2006 to 17/08/2007. The accident took place on 21/12/2006 i.e. after 4 months of the policy. In view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission 5% amount have to be deducted from the insured declared value and it comes (Rs.3,71,569/- – 18,578/-) = Rs.3,52,990/-. According to the report of M/s. Shreenath Motor Pvt. Ltd. there was total loss of the vehicle in question. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to the amount Rs.3,52,990/- towards the insured declared value of the vehicle in question. The copies of letters dtd.30/03/2007 and 25/05/2007 shows that Opposite Party had called some documents and details of the accident from the Complainant by the said letters. The Complainant provided the said details to the Opposite Party by the letters dtd.15/05/2007, 10/06/2007. On 14/06/2007 Opposite Party received the letter dtd.10/06/2007. From the above letters and facts of the case we find that the Complainant is entitled to the interest @ 6% p.a. on the insurance declared value from 14/06/2007 as the Complainant complied the requirements of the documents called for by the Opposite Party but then also the Opposite Party failed to pay insured claim lodged by the Complainant.
8) The Complainant has claimed from the Opposite Party parking charges of the vehicle in question @ Rs.500/- p.m. from January, 2008. According to the Complainant there is delay in settlement of the claim and the authorized garage M/s. Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd. forced the Complainant to shift the vehicle in question, therefore, he is paying to the Housing Society parking charges @ 500/- p.m. The Complainant nowhere in the complaint mentioned the name of the Housing Society to which he has paid parking charges of the vehicle in question. He has not produced receipt of payment of parking charges which he has paid to the Housing Society. The Complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has paid the parking charges of the vehicle in question. However, the question of payment of parking charges is only between the Complainant and concerned Housing Society. This Forum has no concern with the said issue. Under these circumstances the Complainant is not entitled to the parking charges of the vehicle in question. Since from 14/06/2007 Opposite Party neither sanctioned the claim of the Complainant nor repudiated it till filing of the complaint. From the evidence and documents available on record it is just to grant Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant as compensation of mental agony caused to him and Rs.2,500/- towards cost of the complaint.
In the result complaint deserves to be partly allowed with cost against the Opposite Party, therefore, we proceed to pass following order –
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.262/2012 is partly allowed with cost against Opposite Party.
ii. Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant insured declared value Rs.3,52,990/- (Rs.Three Lacs Fifty Two
Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from 14/06/2007 till the realization of said amount.
iii. Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.3,000/-(Rs.Three Thousand Only) towards compensation for
mental harassment caused to him .
iv. Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.2,500/- (Rs.Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the
cost of complaint.
v. Opposite Party is directed to pay the amount mentioned in above para Nos. ii, iii & iv to the Complainant within 45
days from the date of service of this order.
vi. The claim of the Complainant as regards the parking charges is rejected.
vii. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
