DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> <br /> CC.No. 286 of 08.10.2009<br /> Decided on 19.02.2010<br /> <br /> Loveleet Goyal S/o Late Sh. Surinder Kumar Goyal S/o Late Sh. Bisakhi Ram, R/o # 329, St. No.5/3, Sarabha Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ..........Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay Life Building No.34, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-1<br /> 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its D.M., The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> .........Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Jai Gopal Goyal, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For Opposite parties : Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, facts of the complaint are that the father of the complainant was owner of Car No.PB-03L-2835 and he insured his car vide Insurance Policy No.310300/31/06/01/00006320. The above said car met with an accident on 09.12.2007 and the father of the complainant died on 26.11.2007. The complainant sent a letter to opposite party No.1 for settling his claim on 20.02.2009, but the opposite party No.1 failed to process his claim. The complainant was also send a letter dated 12.05.2009 to the opposite parties regarding intimation of RC duly transferred in his name. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times, but the opposite parties have failed to settle his claim. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties be directed to pay Insurance claim of Rs.18,012/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. <br /> 2. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant claimed the claim in question on the basis of will sent vide letter dated 20.02.2009. Since the deceased insured had other legal heirs also including wife and two daughters, the opposite parties being a public institution and custodian of public funds took reasonable care and called upon the complainant to supply succession certificate or legal heir certificate or registration certificate duly transferred in his name on the basis of will as claimed by the complainant, but he did not submit the same. Rather, the opposite parties deputed the surveyor to conduct survey and assess the loss who inspected the said vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.14,273/-. Mrs. Kirna Devi widow of deceased/insured also gave consent letter accepting the loss assessed by the surveyor. The opposite parties have already paid a sum of Rs.13,900/- dated 22.10.2009 to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. In order to prove his allegations complainant filed his own affidavits dated 08.10.2009 and dated 17.12.2009 Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-21 and also brought on record photocopies of postal receipt Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, photocopies of estimate Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, photocopy of Invoice dated 22.12.2007 Ex.C-6, photocopies of letter Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-10, photocopy of reply dated 12.05.2009 Ex.C-8, photocopy of letter dated 11.05.2009 Ex.C-9, photocopy of legal notice dated 05.08.2009 Ex.C-11, photocopy of letter dated 13.02.2004 Ex.C-12, photocopy of account statement Ex.C-13, photocopy of Will dated 08.07.2007 Ex.C-14, photocopy of mutation Ex.C-15, photocopy of R.C. of vehicle No.PB-03L/2835 Ex.C-16, photocopy of Insurance Cover Note Ex.C-17, photocopy of Insurance Certificate Ex.C-18, photocopy of Motor Claim Form Ex.C-19, photocopy of postal receipts Ex.C-20 and photocopy of cheque dated 22.10.2009 Ex.C-22.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties filed affidavits of Sh.P.K.Jain, Sr. Divisional Manager dated 06.11.2009 Ex.R-1 and Er. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Surveyor dated 09.11.2009 Ex.R-5 and also brought on record photocopy of Final Survey Report dated 31.03.2008 Ex.R-2, photocopy of consent letter Ex.R-3, photocopy of letter dated 22.10.2009 Ex.R-4, photocopies of photograph Ex.R-6 to Ex.R-8, photocopy of letter dated 30.09.2009 Ex.R-9, photocopy of letter dated 06.07.2009 Ex.R-10 and photocopy of letter dated 12.03.2009 Ex.R-11 respectively.<br /> 5. Arguments heard. In para No.3 of the complaint, it had been pleaded that the claim was lodged by the complainant on 09.12.2007. In reply to this para, the opposite parties have pleaded in the corresponding para No.3 of written reply on merit that the complainant had reported that the vehicle in question had met with an accident without elaborating as to when that intimation and claim based on loss were lodged. Therefore, the allegations of the complainant are that the claim was lodged on 09.12.2007 is deemed to have accepted by the opposite parties. There is nothing on the record to show that the opposite parties had taken any step for settling the claim till 12.03.2009, when the opposite parties required the complainant to submit Succession Certificate or legal heir certificate or attested true copy of RC duly transferred in the name of Loveleet Kumar to enable them to process the claim. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties had taken any step for settling the claim w.e.f.09.12.2007, when the claim was lodged till writing of letter dated 12.03.2009. Thus, the opposite parties had been unnecessarily sitting over the claim for the period about 15 months. They were required to get all the formalities completed by the complainant which they did not do. The complainant completed the formalities as required vide letter dated 12.03.2009 Ex.R-11. As per his letter dated 12.03.2009, the opposite parties did not settle the claim. Thereafter, even as the result of which, the complainant has instituted this complaint on 08.10.2009. Therefore, the opposite parties had been delaying the matter deliberately which was sheer harassment of the complainant for a period of about two years and ultimately during the pendency of this complaint, paid Rs.13,900/- vide letter dated 22.10.2009. <br /> 6. The complainant claimed Rs.18,102/- as damage caused to the car. His claim is based on the bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 for repair of the car by Modern Motors. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 14,273/- vide Ex.R-2, his survey report. The car in question was 2004 make. Therefore, the surveyor had prepared the above said report on the basis of depreciation of the car. Therefore, the loss assessed by the surveyor appears to be correct. There is undated consent letter Ex.R-3 bearing the signatures of Kirna Devi W/o the deceased insured. This letter also shows that Kirna Devi had accepted the report of the surveyor regarding the assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.14,273/-. It appears that by paying Rs.13,900/-, the insurer deducted Rs.300/- therefrom on account of salvage but there is nothing on the record to show what were the details of the salvage. <br /> 7. Therefore, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.300/- has been unnecessarily deducted from the amount of Rs.14,273/- without any right by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the recovery of Rs.373/. <br /> 8. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.373/- with interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. three months after lodging the claim i.e. 09.12.2007 till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay interest on Rs.13,900/- three months next after lodging the claim i.e. 09.12.2007 till realization.<br /> 9. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 10. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI)<br /> 19.02.2010 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER