Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 137.

                                                          Instituted on     : 20.03.2019.

                                                          Decided on       : 03.08.2021.

Sunil Kumar age 36 years s/o Sh. Surajbir resident of village-Karontha District Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager office situated at Jahwahar Market, Opp. D-Park, Model Town, Delhi Road Rohtak.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.S.P.Dhankhar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant is owner of Chevrolet Aveo Car bearing Registration No.DL-4C-AD-6949 and he got his vehicle insured with the respondent vide policy No.211200/31/2019/22083 for the period from 28.04.2018 to 27.04.2019 with IDV Rs.284000/-.  The above said car of the complainant got fire on 01.07.2018 in the area of village Shimli District Rohtak  and a DD Report No.19 dated 01.07.2018 was duly lodged on the same day in P.S. Shivaji Colony, Rohtak and the complainant duly informed the officials of the opposite party about the burning of vehicle on the same day. The fire brigade officials were duly informed on the same day, who came to the spot but at that time, the car of the complainant had been completely burnt. Complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party complete in all respect on 02.07.2018 but despite his repeated requests, claim has not been settled by the opposite party. Complainant met with the officials of the opposite party and he was told that the surveyor has assessed the value of his car as Rs.109000/- and asked the complainant to receive the alleged amount as full and final settlement of his car whereas the officials of the opposite party assessed the value of the car as Rs.284000/- prior to receiving the premium. So the complainant is legally entitled to IDV amount to the tune of Rs.284000/-. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim has not been settled by the opposite party. So the complainant sent a legal notice on dated 16.02.2019 but to no effect. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.284000/- alongwith interest, compensation  and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that after receiving information from the insured on 02.07.2018 regarding incident dated 01.07.2018 of the vehicle bearing registration no.DL4C-6949, the answering opposite party on the same day took immediate action and appointed surveyor Sh. Surender Singh Malik, Surveyor and loss assessor for spot survey who submitted his report dated 13.07.2018. The answering opposite party also appointed Sh.Satish Kumar Yadav, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for final survey who submitted his report on dated 05.08.2018 and recommended to settle the claim on the basis of net of salvage without papers with assessment amount of Rs.109000/- and he also opined for the correct IDV of the insured vehicle. The answering opposite party also appointed another surveyor Sh. Vokesh Arya and he opined the correct valuation of the vehicle as Rs.160000/-. The answering opposite party also sent letter dated 25.09.2018 and 15.11.2018 but the complainant never gave any reply of the said letters and not submitted the required documents for settlement of the claim. There is no deficiency  in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.08.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.01.2021.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case the main dispute is about the IDV of the vehicle. The perusal of the policy Ex.R1 itself shows that the policy was purchased by the complainant from Policy Bazar.com. In  Policy Bazar, the respondent insurance companies set some parameters for the assessment of value of the vehicle and after considering the date of manufacture, condition of vehicle etc., they issued their premium amount schedule for different type of vehicles. It has been submitted by the complainant that he has purchased the vehicle through OLX and thereafter he insured the same through policy bazaar. Meaning thereby after well assessment, they have insured the vehicle for the period 28.04.2018 to 24.04.2019 with IDV Rs. 284000/-. The vehicle in question got fire on 01.07.2018 and was totally damaged. It is to the utter surprise that opposite party has assessed the value of vehicle Rs.284000/- on 28.04.2018 but only after 64 days, they has assessed the value of vehicle Rs.150000/-, which is neither well reasoned nor justified.  As per assessment report R6, the surveyor has assessed the loss on Net of Salvage basis and the wreck value is assessed as Rs.40000/-, which is not assessed from open market and the surveyor has assessed the wreck value Rs.40000/- at his own. The vehicle in question is totally damaged and the wreck value is assessed on higher side. In our view the wreck value of the vehicle is Rs.20000/-  Hence the complainant is entitled for the IDV of the vehicle(Rs.284000/-) after deducting the wreck value of Rs.20000/- and policy clause Rs.1000/-.

 6.                         In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.263000/-(Rupees two lacs sixty three thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.20.03.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as  litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.08.2021.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.