Haryana

Karnal

CC/387/2016

Rohit - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.S. Moonak

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.387 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 19.12.2016

                                                         Date of decision:20.03.2018

 

Rohit son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of house no.144, near Sharma School, Noorwala, Panipat.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Meera Ghati Chowk, Karnal.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms Veena Rani…..Member

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present  Shri S.S.Moonak Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Amit Gupta Advocate for opposite party.

               

 

ORDER:                    

 

                (Jagmal Singh President)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of the Tata Indica car bearing R.C. no.HR-06/U-6199. The same was insured with the OP, vide its cover note no.635896 valid from 20.01.2015 to 19.01.2016. On 11.01.2016 the said car was being driven by Bhupesh Chander Sharma at about 7.10 p.m. when the said car was reached near village Sagga, of a sudden the said car caught fire and was totally burnt, the matter was reported to the Police of P.S. Taraori in that regard vide DDR no.20 dated 12.01.2016 and fire report was prepared by the concerned office of Fire Department from Taraori. A sum of Rs.400/- was paid to the Fire Authority, Taraori. Survey was conducted by the surveyor of the company, thereafter, another surveyor submitted the necessary information in that regard. The necessary documents were submitted by the complainant in the office of OP regarding the IDV claim of the car. Despite submitting all the relevant documents, OP neither settled the claim nor repudiated and the matter is being prolonged unnecessarily without any reason. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the complaint; cause of action and concealment of facts. On merits, it is submitted that Tata Indica car bearing registration no.HR-06U-6199 got insured by the complainant with OP, vide cover note dated 19.1.2015 for the period from 20.01.2015 to 19.01.2016. On 12.01.2016, the complainant lodged a claim with OP alleging that t he car in question has been damaged on 11.01.2016 in fire. The claim put by the complainant was investigated and a surveyor was appointed in order to assess the loss. The surveyor reported that the vehicle in question has been badly damaged in the fire, and the same is beyond repairs as such the claim lodged by the complainant be settled on net of salvage basis without RC. The market price of the damaged/burnt vehicle was assessed as Rs.15000/- only and as such, after deducting an amount of Rs.15000/- towards wreckage/salvage value of the vehicle and an amount of Rs.1000/- on account of excess clause in terms of the policy from the insured declared value of Rs.1,90,000/-, he recommended that an amount of Rs.1,74,000/- be paid to the complainant. The complainant was asked to give his consent for settlement of the claim lodged by him on total loss basis without RC and he submitted a consent letter dated 12.03.2016 with the OP company, agreeing to settle his claim on total loss basis for Rs.1,74,000/-. Accordingly, the appropriate authority accepted the claim lodged by the complainant and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- to the complainant towards full and final satisfaction of his claim subject to submitting the requisite “RC Cancellation Certificate” and requisite discharge voucher  in favour of the OP. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 20.09.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Manraj Virk Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed the evidence on 1.3.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             It is admitted case of the parties that the car no.HR-06U-6199 of the complainant was insured with the OP from 20.01.2015 to 19.01.2016 and on 11.01.2016 the said car caught fire and was totally burnt. DDR no.20 dated 12.1.2016 was recorded in Police Station Taraori and fire report was prepared by concerned Fire Department from Taraori, who received Rs.400/- in this regard. Shri Rajesh Chhabra was appointed surveyor by the OP, who reported that vehicle in question has been badly burnt in fire and same is beyond repair. The report Ex.R-4 o f the surveyor is dated 28.3.2016 vide which he assessed the salvage value of the vehicle as Rs.15000/-. The surveyor stated in his report that insured has been convinced to retain the wreck/damage vehicle for Rs.15000/-. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1,90,000/- and the surveyor assessed the liability of the OP as Rs.1,74,000/- after deducting the salvage value Rs.15,000/- and excess clause as Rs.1000/- (i.e. Rs.1,90,000-15000-1000=1,74,000/-). The surveyor attached the consent letter of the complainant dated 12.03.2016, Ex.R-3 with his report vide which the complainant gave his consent that he agree to accept the full and final settlement of his claim on total loss basis (without RC) for Rs.1,74,000/-.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has filed the present complaint on 19.12.2016 stating the OP has neither settled the claim nor repudiated the same and prolonged the matter un-necessarily. The OP filed his reply on 17.7.2017 stating therein that claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered and complainant was informed vide letter dated 27.01.2017 that the competent authority has approved his claim to the tune of Rs.1,74,000/- on net of salvage basis, without RC. From this fact, it is clear that the OP has settle the claim of the complainant on 27.01.2017 after filing the complaint by the complainant whereas the OP should have settled the same within 30 days from the receipt of the survey report. In this regard we can rely upon the authority cited in 2017(2)CLT 155(NC) titled as Madan Lal Gupta Versus National Insurance Co.Ltd.

The head note of the same is as: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) & The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, Regulation 9(5) &(6) & The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, Sections 14 & 26-Survey report-Time limit for settlement of claim after receipt of survey report-Held-That the Insurer is bound to accept or reject the claim within 30 days from the receipt of the survey report-If the claim is to be rejected, reasons therefore have to be recorded in writing and communicated to the Insured within the said period, otherwise offer for settlement in terms of the report has to be made within the said time-Repudiation in breach of the mandatory statutory provisions-Amounts to deficiency in service.

 

8.             In view of this authority the OP has violated the provision of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, Regulation 9(5) &(6) & The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. The report of the surveyor is dated 28.3.2016, therefore, the OP has delayed the settlement of the claim of the complainant without any reason. Hence the OP is deficient in providing services to the complainant.    In these facts and circumstances of the case, in our

opinion, the interest of justice will be met if we allowed interest also to the complainant on the claim amount after 30 days i.e. from 1.5.2016 till its payment.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,74,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from 1.5.2016 till its realization subject to furnishing of subrogation letter and transfer of ownership of vehicle by the complainant within 15 days in the name of OP. However, it is made clear that if the complainant takes time more than 15 days then the complainant will not be entitled for interest for the delayed period. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 20.03.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

        (Veena Rani)             (Anil Sharma)

           Member                     Member