Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/84

Rajiv Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Lt. - Opp.Party(s)

Charanjit Sidana

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                 84 of 2018

Date of Institution:     18.05.2018

Date of Decision :      11.03.2019

 

Rajiv Mittal aged about 39 years, son of Suresh Kumar  r/o Railway Road, Opposite Sharma Studio, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Branch Kotkapura through its Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regd & Head Office New India Assurance Building, 87 M G Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

.....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Charanjit Sidana, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs

 

 

cc no.84 of 2018

 

seeking directions to OPs to make payment of remaining  insurance claim with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of car bearing registration no. PB-04-U-2962 and car of complainant is fully insured with OPs vide Insurance Policy bearing no. 36070131150300011102 valid for the period from 3.10.2015 to 2.10.2016.  It is submitted that on 17.04.2016, his friend took his car for some urgent work and his friend met with an accident at Muktsar Road, Kotkapura with an unidentified vehicle. In said accident his friend received multiple injuries and is under treatment and his car is totally damaged. DDR to this effect was got recorded and thereafter, complainant approached OPs and applied for his genuine insurance claim, but after investigation OPs sanctioned only Rs.1,88,800/-to complainant though his car was insured for Rs.4,80,000/-. It is further submitted that at the time of insurance, OPs took premium of driver under which his friend is also covered as insured, but complainant has not received full insurance cover for his vehicle as well as for driver. On 15.01.2018, complainant again approached OPs and they assured to pass his remaining insurance claim, but on 10.04.2018, OPs flatly refused to sanction any amount other than

cc no.84 of 2018

sanctioned claim to him.   Complainant also served legal notice dated 11.04.2018 to OPs wherein requested through his counsel to make  payment of remaining insurance claim, but OPs did not bother to give any reply to same. Action of OPs in passing lesser insurance claim and for not passing his remaining insurance claim despite his repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and all this has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                          The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 23.05.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                        On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even complainant is not the consumer under Consumer Protection Act. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and asserted that claim of complainant was settled on Cash Loss Basis and on request of complainant and as per report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor R P Gupta and when claim is settled on cash loss basis, the salvage always remains with the insured and no bill for repair is to be

cc no.84 of 2018

submitted by the insured to the Insurance Company. It is further averred that complainant gave due consent and accepted the claim as per Cash  Loss Basis. It is averred that complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint as he has already received the full and final claim of the car regarding accident dated 17.04.2016. As per Survey Report and on request of complainant, claim of Rs.1,88,800/- was satisfied as per Cash Loss Basis and now nothing is due and recoverable from OPs. It is further averred that lengthy evidence is required in this case, which is not possible in summary procedure and moreover, complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. however, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and further averred that on request of complainant, his insurance claim was settled as per Cash Loss Basis as per report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor, and amount of Rs.1,88,800/-was paid to complainant on 2.09.2016 vide cheque no.5683 through NEFT, which was duly accepted by him. Premium for owner cum driver was also paid and moreover, friend of complainant was not covered under the policy as he was not owner cum driver of said car. It is reiterated that claim of complainant has already been settled and now nothing is due to be payable by them to complainant. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they have denied all the allegations of complainant alongwith allegation of relief sought and have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

cc no.84 of 2018

5                                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in

 

evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-80 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Deen Dayal Aggarwal as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-6 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                        The ld Counsel for complainant argued that car of complainant bearing  registration no. PB-04-U-2962 was fully insured with OPs vide Insurance Policy No. 36070131150300011102 valid for the period from 3.10.2015 to 2.10.2016 and during the period of subsistence of Insurance Policy, on 17.04.2016, friend of complainant took his car and on Muktsar Road, Kotkapura, it met with an accident with an unidentified vehicle. In that accident his friend was injured and his car was fully damaged. DDR to this effect was got recorded and then, complainant lodged claim with OPs, but after investigation OPs sanctioned claim only for Rs.1,88,800/. It is contended that car of complainant was insured for Rs.4,80,000/-, but they sanctioned claim for very lesser amount. At the time of insurance, OPs took premium of driver under which his friend is also covered as insured, but complainant has not received full insurance cover for his

cc no.84 of 2018

vehicle as well as for driver. Despite repeated request and issuance of Legal Notice to OPs, they paid no heed to pass his genuine insurance  claim,  which caused harassment and mental agony to him. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and ld counsel for complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-80.

8                                                          To controvert the arguments of ld counsel for complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that complaint filed by complainant is frivolous and also denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect and false and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It is argued that  claim of complainant was settled on Cash Loss Basis, on request of complainant and as per report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor R P Gupta and when claim is settled on cash loss basis, the salvage always remains with the insured and no bill for repair is to be submitted by the insured to the Insurance Company. It is further argued that complainant gave due consent for passing his claim on Cash Loss Basis  and accepted the claim amount of Rs.1,88,800/-as per Cash Loss Basis. He has already received the full and final claim of the car regarding accident dated 17.04.2016. As per Survey Report and on request of complainant, claim of Rs.1,88,800/- was  paid and nothing is due to be paid to him. It is further argued that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed and OPs have denied all the allegations of

cc no.84 of 2018

complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that on request of complainant, insurance claim pertaining to accident of car of  complainant, was settled as per Cash Loss Basis as per report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor, and amount of Rs.1,88,800/-was paid to complainant on 2.09.2016 vide cheque no.5683 through NEFT, which was duly accepted by him. Premium for owner cum driver was also paid. Friend of complainant was not covered under the policy in question as he was not owner cum driver of said car. It is reiterated that claim of complainant has already been settled and amount of Rs.1,88,000/-stands paid to him and now nothing is due to be payable by them to complainant. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

9                                                        We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10                                                      From the careful perusal of record placed on file and after going through the pleadings and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that he has not received full insurance amount covered under the policy. As per complainant, his car was insured for Rs.4,8,000/-but OPs cleared the claim for only Rs.1,88,800/-, that has caused harassment and mental agony to him. On the contrary stand taken by Ops is that they have cleared the claim of complainant on his request and as per Survey Report given by Surveyor and Loss Assessor on Cash Loss Basis and amount

cc no.84 of 2018

assessed by Ops have been duly paid to complainant through cheque dated 2.09.2016 and now nothing is payable by them.

11                                                      Ld counsel for OPs stressed on document Ex OP-4 which is a letter written by complainant to OPs wherein he has prayed for passing his claim on cash loss basis. Bare perusal of this letter reveals that complainant stated in this letter that he is unable to get repaired his car due to financial problems and wants to get passed him claim for damage to his car in cash. Further affidavit  given by Engineer  Ramesh Paul Gupta, Ex OP-2 clears the plea of OPs that loss assessed to the car was to the extent of Rs.1,88,800/- on cash loss basis on the request of complainant. Copy of Survey Report is Ex OP-3 wherein the Surveyor has specifically mentioned that insured had represented in person before Sr. Branch Manager, Kotkapura and Sr. Divisional Manager, Ferozepur. Likewise we also appraised the claim at DO on telephone and at RO personally on 20.05.2016 and 25.05.2016. Finally, the insured requested via his letter dated 25.05.2016 for Repair cash loss settlement of loss citing his inability to arrange funds for repairs stating that he had to arrange even for his routine requirements by pledging his gold chain from Muthut Finance. Therefore, OPs settled the claim of complainant on cash loss basis for Rs.1,88,800/-. Ex Op-5 is consent letter and acceptance given by complainant to OPs for passing his claim on cash loss basis and he has duly mentioned in it that he is agreed with the claim assessed by Ops. OP-6 is the payment voucher that clears the point that they have duly made the payment of insurance claim

cc no.84 of 2018

of Rs.1,88,800/-to complainant  which was duly accepted by him.  From the above discussion it is clearly proved that claim of complainant is settled on cash loss basis on his own request and complainant gave his consent to settle his claim for Rs.1,88,800/- and received this amount without any objection. Now, complainant cannot resile from his own consent. OPs have fully proved their case and there is no doubt that there is any deficiency in service on their part.            

12                                                      From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs in clearing the claim of complainant on Cash Loss Basis as per report of Surveyor and on request and consent given by complainant. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 11.03.2019                 

 

(Parampal Kaur)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)

           Member                                   President