Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 593
Instituted on : 11.10.2022
Decided on : 07.08.2023
Sant Ram Dalal aged- 78 years S/o Sh. Pale Ram R/o VPO Rewari Khera, Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 313, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
- The Manager, Canara Bank, Kanwar Singh Colony, Rohtak Road, Jhajjar-124103. …….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Anurag Malik, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party no. 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is owner of vehicle i.e. Hyundai Verna Car bearing registration No.HR-13-P-9752 and on 16.01.2021 the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party no. 1 vide policy no.11300031202001503461 which was valid upto 15.01.2022. The vehicle was financed from the opposite party no. 2. On 05.01.2022, the vehicle in question met with an accident and was totally damaged. The complainant had informed opposite party no. 1 without any delay. An FIR no.10 dated 06.01.2022 was got registered. The survey was conducted by the surveyor of the opposite party no. 1 and the claim was approved. He had applied for claim within time vide claim no.77934/80, but till date complainant has not received the claim amount. The insured value of the vehicle of the complainant was assessed by the opposite party no. 1 as Rs.8,98,000/- and complainant had paid the requisite premium amount of insurance to opposite party no. 1. Complainant submitted the documents as required by the opposite party no. 1. Complainant had received a letter dated 09.09.2022 from the opposite party mentioning therein that the IDV of the vehicle is on the higher side to the tune of Rs.1,22,000/- and the opposite party no. 1 is unable to settle the claim. The opposite party no. 1 has not raised this point during the complete policy tenure of the complainant. If there was violation of any rule then the same was to be conveyed on 16.01.2021 i.e. at the time of inception of policy. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay IDV amount i.e. Rs.8,98,000/- alongwith interest, Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.20,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in his reply submitted that complainant has not provided the requisite documents to them despite various requests in this regard. They appointed Sh. Jugal Kishore Duneja, Surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss. As per his report, loss was assessed on NET OF SALVAGE loss basis(With RC) of Rs.5,66,000/-. It is further submitted that Rs.8,98,000/- IDV of Verna Car petrol model 2019 is on higher side. As per GR-8 of Indian Motor Tariff, IDV should not be more than Rs.7,76,000/-. Higher IDV is violation of GR-8 of India Motor Tariff. They acted as per law and the same is explained in letter dated 09.09.2022. It is submitted that when company came to know in respect of higher IDV, then they sent letter. As earlier same was not in their knowledge. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost. Notice issued to opposite party no. 2 through registered post on 21.10.2022 not received back either served or unserved. Track report placed on record which reflects that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2. As such, opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.12.2022 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.03.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Documents perused. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. The insurance company has not settled the claim of the complainant. we have perused the document Ex.C4/Ex.R2 dated 09.09.2022 placed on record by both the parties. The main part of the letter is as under:-“ Kind Attention Mrs. Samiksha Bhosle : During processing of the claim and as per survey report, IDV is found on higher side to the tune of Rs.122000/- which is violation of GR 8 of Indian Motor Tariff. We have tried to negotiate IDV with the customer but he is reluctant to reduce the same and pressing hard for settlement of claim on full IDV fixed through your office. Hence, we are unable to settle this claim on full IDV under the circumstances and forwarding the complete claim file with request to settle the claim at your end upto the satisfaction of the insured”. This letter has been written by the Regional Manager to Senior Divisional manager and the copies of the same are also forwarded to Ramesh Mehar, Regional Manager Chandigarh, Sant Ram Dalal(complainant) and Mr. Ashok Kumar Mittal Officiating Branch Incharge, Sampla Branch for information. After this letter neither the Sampla branch nor the Divisional Manager approached the complainant regarding the settlement of the claim. We have minutely perused the survey report Ex.R1. In this report the surveyor has mentioned that the wreck value of the damaged vehicle has been agreed by the insured as Rs.330000/-. The surveyor has not attached any undertaking or agreed statement by the complainant with the survey report. Moreover the surveyor has assessed the claim on four grounds i) assessment on repair basis, ii)assessment on total loss basis, iii)assessment on net of salvage basis(with RC) and iv)assessment on net of salvage basis(without RC). In the present case the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.898000/- and the surveyor has assessed the loss after considering different heads which has been mentioned above.
As per repair basis the assessment comes to Rs.999999/-, on total loss basis Rs.896000/-, on net of salvage basis(with RC) Rs.566000/- and net of salvage basis without RC Rs.776000/-. Perusal of the documents itself shows that the complainant has not made any consent either to the surveyor or to the insurance company officials regarding the settlement of the claim. On the other hand the complainant has submitted that the insurance company cannot change the IDV of the vehicle during the currency of the policy period. In the present case the policy period of the vehicle is 16.01.2021 to 15.01.2022 and as per GR 08 itself the IDV value cannot be changed during the currency of policy. Moreover the insurance company failed to place on record any document to prove the fact that GR 8 has been applicable in this case. Hence opposite parties are liable to pay the loss as assessed by the surveyor i.e. on net of salvage basis(without RC) amounting to Rs.898000/- after deducting the salvage value, which we have assessed as Rs.70000/- and policy excess clause Rs.2000/-. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the amount of Rs.898000/- less Rs.70000/- less Rs.2000/- which comes to Rs.826000/-. It is also observed that the vehicle in question was hypothecated with the Canara Bank and as per ‘No dues certificate’ Ex.C6, no dues are outstanding against the complainant and the hypothecation agreement has been terminated. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited by ld. counsel for the complainant of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.1299 of 2019 titled as Sumit Kumar Saha Vs. Reliance Gen Ins., which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.826000/-(Rupees eight lac twenty six thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.10.2022 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complainant is directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. and to supply the copy of the letter to the opposite party.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.08.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
...................................................
Vijender Singh, Member
