Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/383/2016

Manohar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajmer Lal Pundeer Adv.

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	383 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	30.5.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	6.3.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Manohar Sharma resident of H. No.1002, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh (UT), Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office No.99-100, 1^st floor, Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its Senior Divisional Manager.
2. The oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office SCO No.109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Chief Regional Manager.   

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. A.L. Pundheer, Adv.        

 

For OPs                 :     Sh. Satpal Dhamijja, Adv.

 

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

     As per the case, the complainant got  his car Indica insured with OPs for the period from 19.4.2014 to 18.4.105.  having IDV of Rs.1,20,000/-. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 30.5.2014.  The complainant immediately intimated Opposite Party No.1 regarding the same.  The Opposite Parties appointed the surveyor to get the loss assessed. It is pleaded that Opposite Party No.2 informed the complainant that the chassis No. of the car in question  as mentioned in the RC is wrong. The complainant immediately rushed to the Registering and Licensing Authority for correction and submitted their report confirming the ownership of the said Car.  It is alleged that despite approaching the Opposite Parties numerous time for settlement of the claim they did not settle the same till date. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2. The Opposite Parties in their joint reply while admitting the factual aspect of the case sated that on receiving the report of the accident they appointed a surveyor  and after receiving the final report and going through the documents received from the complainant the competent authority approved the claim to the tune of Rs.1,19,000/- on ‘total loss basis’ subject to completion of formalities. However, the complainant failed to fulfill the necessary formalities  such as permission from the trial court to cancel registration certificate; to handover the salvage to the Opposite Parties as recommended by the surveyor.  It is asserted that since the vehicle was financed as such in the absence of ‘NOC’ from the financer the RC  could not be cancelled and in the absence of NOC from the financer the complainant is not entitled to receive any claim amount as per agreed clause of the policy in question. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties as the complainant is himself negligent in completing the necessary formalities. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite parties  made in their reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6.     It is admitted case between the parties that the vehicle in question was insured by OPs for the period from 19.4.2014 to 18.4.2015, which met with an accident and got completely damaged. Due information was given to the insurance company and the assessment of loss was duly estimated by the surveyor appointed by the OPs.  Letter dated 26.10.2015 issued by the OPs to the complainant reveals that the OPs approved claim of the complainant for Rs.1,19,000/- on ‘total loss basis’ subject to completion of the certain formalities.

    It transpires  from the record as well as from the submissions of the complainant that during process of fulfilling the formalities put forth by the OPs for the settlement of the claim the complainant was encountered with the fact as well pointed out by the OPs that RC of the vehicle in question bears wrong chassis number. The complainant when tried to get the discrepancy removed by approaching the appropriate registering authority, he was apprised that the present software generated for the registration of vehicle i.e. ‘VAHAN’ software is functioning as per the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and there is no provision in the software for any transaction/correction regarding the vehicle for valid insurance. Therefore, it is not feasible to put any correction in the registration certificate of the vehicle in question without valid insurance.  The complainant was put in dilemma by such appriser.  It became difficult for complainant to get the vehicle insured which had already been declared as a case of total loss. We also feel that it is next to impossible to get the vehicle insured which had already been declared as a case of total loss.

7.     To resolve the above controversy, during the course of arguments both the parties amicably settled that the complainant be paid as per the assessment done by the surveyor vide its report dated 5.5.2015, where he has assessed the wreck value of the vehicle amounting to Rs.22,000/- approximately without R/C and the liability of the OPs on net liability on constructive total loss basis as under:-

“Net Liability on constructive total loss basis= Assessment on total loss basis- Wreck Value=1,19,000-22,000=97,000/- approximately.  Without R/C.” 

 

 

8.     In the given circumstances as it is difficult to get any correction done in the RC  in the absence of valid insurance, so the complainant is right in opting for the assessment made by the surveyor on constructive total loss basis without RC. This clarifies that the complainant is now entitled for Rs.97,000/- against his approved claim of Rs.1,19,000/- and the OPs are under obligation to pay the same to the complainant.
9.     Before parting with this complaint, we deem it appropriate that  the complainant be duly compensated for the delay caused by the OPs by keeping the claim of the complainant pending and withholding the decision regarding payment of the claim. It is evident on record that after approving the claim of the complainant for Rs.1,19,000/- vide letter dated 26.10.2015, the OPs not only failed to decide the fate of the claim but also failed to disburse the amount approved for whatsoever the reason may be  and also kept the complainant in lurch. Such an act of the OPs amounts to the violation of the provisions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Polichyholders’ Interests) Regulations 2002. The OPs failed to follow the due procedure laid down in clause 9 of the above quoted regulation. Such violation on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in service, which undoubtedly caused harassment to the complainant and forced him to file the present complaint. 
10.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To pay Rs.97,000/- to the complainant towards his claim as assessed by the surveyor

 

b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

C]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the above awarded amounts at (a) from the date of filing of claim till realization and at (b)  from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

6.3.2017

                                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER