DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/428

Date of Institution : 13.06.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 19.07.2022

Gurmeet Singh age 52 years son of S.Avtar Singh resident of Village Ram Singh Wala, Post Office Bhangala, Tehsil Patti District Tarn Taran. …Complainant

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Surya Tower, 108, The Mall, Bagh Khazanchian, Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager.

2. The Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, 1215, 12th Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 11 and 12 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date

Present: Sh. Vishal Gupta Adv counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Sanjay Kapoor Adv counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ludhiana and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is owner of one Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. PB-46-S-4341 which was duly insured with the opposite parties. Mandeep Singh was working as driver of said car. On 16.7.2016 when Mandeep Singh was going to Ludhiana and at about 8.10 AM when they reached at National Highway, Opposite Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Jalandhar the car of the complainant was struck by a bus belonging to Roadways due to which the driver Mandeep Singh died at the spot and other passengers of the car also received injuries. The car of the complainant was badly damaged in the said accident. Even a criminal case bearing General diary No. 19 dated 16.7.2016 was also registered by the Police Station, Division No. 8, Jalandhar. The policy was valid from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016 for sum insured of Rs. 4,46,135/-. After that the complainant had been repeatedly requesting opposite parties to disburse the claim arising out of loss suffered by the complainant but opposite parties delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. On asking of opposite parties the complainant got estimate of damaged car from Jay Cee Motors, Amritsar and according to the said agency the damage caused to the said car came to about Rs. 4,54,335.50 paise. Even surveyor of the insurance company approached complainant and he accompanied complainant and also took photographs and other documents belonging to said car. But the opposite parties failed to disburse the claim in favour of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 16.5.2018 upon the opposite parties but of no use which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pass the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,54,335.50 paise.     

2) To pay Rs. 22,000/- on account of compensation for harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as cost of legal expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. The complainant has been called a number of time to produce the documents and clarify certain particulars but he avoided to attend the office of the opposite parties and because of non compliance formalities by the complainant the claim was closed. Even as per survey report of M/s VK Mehta the claim was recommended for Rs. 3,45,135/- subject to cancellation of registration, NOS affidavit duly attested by 1st Class Magistrat, PAN Card, cancelled cheque and other necessary formalities but complainant failed to do so. As and when the complainant lodged claim regarding the accident in question his claim was duly processed and he was called some clarification vide letts dated 28.3.2017, 29.9.2017, 6.11.2017 and 6.3.2018 the complainant failed to supply any information to the opposite party. 

4. On merits, it is admitted that vehicle bearing registration No. PB-46-S-4341 was insured with the opposite party from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016. Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite parties. The complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The vehicle was minutely inspected by the Surveyor VK Mehta in the presence of repairer and after inspection the repair cost is considered uneconomical and repair assessment exceeds the 75% of IDV and found to be clear case of constructive total loss and as per final survey report the claim was recommended for Rs. 3,45,135/- subject to certain documents and formalities but complainant failed to do so. Rest of the submissions mentioned in the complaint are denied by the opposite parties and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. In support of his complaint, the complainant filed his documents with the complaint and to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties also filed their documents with the written version. 

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file carefully. Written arguments also filed by the complainant. 

7. It is admitted case of the complainant that the car bearing registration No. PB-46S-4341 of the complainant was insured with them for the period from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016 and Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs. 4,46,135/-. The copy of the insurance policy of the car is Ex.B. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that Sh. VK Mehta was deputed for final survey. The opposite parties also mentioned in their written version that the Surveyor VK Mehta inspected the vehicle minutely in the workshop of Jaycee Motors, as such the accident was also impliedly admitted by the opposite parties. 

8. The complainant has produced the estimated bill dated 26.10.2016 Ex.C of Jaycee Motors, Amritsar, in accordance which the repair cost of the car of the complainant is mentioned as Rs. 4,54,335.50 paise. Since the complainant would have insured value of the car i.e. Rs. 4,46,135/-, therefore, he rightly requested the opposite parties to pay IDV of the car i.e. Rs. 4,46,135/- against total loss of the car. The opposite parties also produced the report of VK Mehta Ex.OP-5 in which it is mentioned by the expert that “ Vehicle was minutely inspected by us in the presence of repairer. After thoroughly inspection and going through the estimate submitted by insured the repair cost is considered uneconomical and the repair assessment exceeds the 75% of IDV and found to be clear case of constructive total loss.” This report is produced by the opposite parties which means they admitted that the vehicle loss is total loss. 

9. A vehicle will be considered to be a total loss where the aggregate cost of repair of vehicle subject to terms and conditions of the policy exceeds 75% of the IDV. In the instant case the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 4,46,135/- and estimated cost of the repair of the vehicle as per estimate vide report Ex.OP-5 is also exceeding than 75% of the IDV as per estimated bill Ex.C. Therefore, the vehicle of the complainant could be considered to be total loss. In this view of the matter the complainant is entitled to full insured claim amount of Rs. 4,46,135/-. 

10. Since the claim of the complainant has not yet decided by the opposite parties, non settlement of claim within the reasonable period by the company amounts to deficiency in service. When the vehicle is total loss the complainant thought it proper not to get it repair and he was not in a position to furnish the final bills or bills payment receipts.

11. Further, the opposite parties also have taken an objection that cause of accident is different in claim form in comparison with DDR but the opposite parties failed to produce on record copy of claim form  to prove this objection, so this objection of the opposite parties also no force. In this way, by not paying the insurance claim to the complainant is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

12. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 4,46,135/- to the complainant on account of insurance claim alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,200/- as costs and litigation expenses. The complainant is directed to hand over damaged vehicle to the opposite parties and he is also bound to transfer the ownership of the car in the name of insurance company/opposite parties. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        19th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member