Delhi

North East

CC/461/2015

Saira Bano - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance co. - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 461/15

 

 

In the matter of:

 

1.   2.   3.	Smt Saira Bano W/o Lt. Sh. Kamaluddin (deceased through LRs)   Mohd. Anas Siddiqui   Amir Siddiqui   Kashif Siddiqui     All S/o Lt. Sh. Kamaluddin All R/o C-101, Chauhan Banger, Near Lal Masjid, Brahmpuri, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, A-2/3, Lusa Tower, Azadpur, Delhi-110033	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

20.11.15 08.05.23 15.05.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the Complainant purchased vehicle bearing no. DL-5C-E-1878 and got it insured from Opposite Party vide policy no. 32010031090100203231 w.e.f 28.10.09 to 27.10.10. The Complainant stated that on 15.04.10 the vehicle in question met with an accident and husband of Complainant got injured and expired in hospital on 15.04.10. Thereafter a detailed information given to Police Station, Phase-II Noida, U.P on 19.04.10. The Complainant stated that on 13.05.10 Complainant gave detailed information to office of Opposite Party along with all relevant documents for claim and thereafter Complainant visited office of Opposite Party various times but Opposite Party did not release her claim. The Complainant stated that the vehicle was totally damaged and the same has already been verified by Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that she visited office of Opposite Party various times but officials of Opposite Party did not pass the insurance claim and still not bothering to pass insurance claim. The Complainant also sent a legal notice to Opposite Party dated 17.01.13 via speed post. Despite various visits and request the Opposite Party company did not pass the claim of Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 4,47,427/- with interest @ 24 % and Rs. 10 lakh for compensation on account of her husband’s death along with interest @ 24 %. She further prayed for Rs. 3 lakh for mental harassment with interest and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation expenses. During the trail, the Complainant Smt. Saira Bano expired and her above mentioned LRs were brought on record.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is alleged that the Complainant never cooperated the Opposite Party for processing the claim. It is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured by the Opposite Party. It is stated that after receiving the legal notice from the Complainant a surveyor was appointed for assessment of the loss. The surveyor has recommended the loss on cash loss basis for Rs. 1,69,142/-. It is stated that the Complainant is not entitled for more than 75 % of the insured declared value. It is stated that he Opposite Party is not liable to pay the damages and compensation as demanded by the Complainant.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein the Complainant has supported her case as mentioned in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Kavita Jain, Administrative Officer of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the

written statement of Opposite Party have been supported. The Opposite Party has also filed an affidavit of Sh. Raman kumar, Surveyor.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that her husband was having a car which was insured by the Opposite Party. The said policy was valid from 28.10.09 to 27.10.10. On 15.04.10 the said car met with an accident and in the accident her husband sustained fatal injuries. After the death of her husband, the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party on 13.05.10 and submitted all the relevant documents including driving licence of her husband. Her case is that she visited several times the office of the Opposite Party but nothing was done. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant did not cooperate the Opposite Party for processing the claim.  It is admitted that on 13.05.10 the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party regarding the accident and death of her husband. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant never cooperated the Opposite Party for processing the claim. However, nothing has been brought on record to show that the Complainant did not cooperate the Opposite Party for processing the claim therefore this plea of the Opposite Party cannot be accepted. In its written statement the Opposite Party has stated that after receiving the legal notice from the Complainant the surveyor was requested for assessment of the loss. The Complainant has sent the legal notice on 17.01.13. Meaning thereby the Opposite Party did not take any action for processing the claim for about 3 years. The case of the Complainant is that the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident. The perusal of the report of the surveyor also shows that the vehicle was badly damaged. As the Opposite Party did not take any action to process the claim of the Complainant for a long period of about 3 years so in our opinion the Complainant is entitled to the IDV value of the car i.e. Rs. 4,47,426/-. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deducted from the said amount on account of salvage. Therefore, it is directed that Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,97,426/-to the Complainant’s LRs mentioned above in equal shares along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant’s LRs in equal shares on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
7. Order announced on 15.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)        Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President