Haryana

Panchkula

CC/669/2019

RAJENDRA PRASAD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MAHESH BANSAL.

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

For the Parties:   None for the complainant. 

                        Sh. Ram Avtar, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant is the owner of car bearing Regd.No.HR-21-G-1466, which met with an accident, qua which an FIR No.53 of 2015 u/S 304-A IPC, P.S.Chandimandir was registered against an unknown person; the said car was impounded by the police of P.S.Chandimandir and the same was got released on superdari by the complainant from the Hon’ble Court of ACJM, Panchkula. It is stated that the OPs have assessed the loss of the vehicle on total loss basis; since the loss was assessed on total loss basis, the salvage of the vehicle is the property of the Ops. It is also stated that the he(the complainant) filed an application before the court of ACJM, Panchkula seeking permission to transfer the vehicle in the name of the insurance company but his prayer was declined with an observation that the said application should be moved by the insurance company but the Ops had failed to move any application before the court of ACJM, Panchkula; this fact was brought to the notice of the Ops but the Ops insisted on getting the R.C. cancelled and for depositing the salvage after cancellation of superdari. The complainant informed the OPs that superdari could not be got cancelled due to the fact that the investigation in the matter was still pending. The Ops vide letters dated 10.10.2017 called upon the complainant to deposit the salvage after cancellation of the Superdari. The complainant replied the OPs, wherein he reiterated his earlier version. It is further stated that the Ops are not interested in settling the claim of the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement, raising preliminary objection such as the present complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the insurance company had sent various communications through Registered/ courier post on 05.03.2015, 07.05.2015 and 10.10.2017 but no satisfactory reply, whatsoever, was given by the complainant, which amounts to non-cooperation and non-submission of requisite information and documents resulting into closure of the claim as NO CLAIM vide letter dated 04.04.2018. It is submitted that the competent authority, in order to avoid  any delay on its part, took a decision vide letter dated 05.03.2015, duly communicated to the insured, that it was ready to make payment of the claim subject  to completion of various formalities as mentioned therein. It is also stated that the vehicle was declared as total loss by the expert/Surveyor & Loss Assessor deputed by the Insurance Company, who is a duly licensed Surveyor as approved by IRDA and the value of the damaged wreck was also assessed at that time and duly communicated to the complainant. The Superdari of the vehicle in question was taken by the insured himself and he did not part with the wreck of the vehicle, whereas in that situation, the insurance company was not in a position  to release  the entire amount in his favour without making compliance of the requirements duly communicated by the OPs. It is stated that the complainant is bound to keep the wreck of the vehicle in safe and sound condition till the claim was approved and on receipt of the wreck of the salvage, the insurance company was to release the payment of the approved claim as per terms and conditions of the policy of insurance in his favour. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 07.04.2022. 

4.             The case was fixed on 08.05.2020 but none appeared on behalf of the complainant to submit evidence on his behalf. Notice was issued to the complainant to appear on 07.04.2022, which was served upon him by process server on 28.03.2022. On 07.04.2022 despite services of notices upon the complainant asking him to submit his evidence, none appeared on his behalf and accordingly, the evidence of the complainant was closed by the order of the Commission on 07.04.2022 and case was adjourned to 27.07.2022 for filing evidence by the OPs No.1 & 2. On 27.07.2022, again none appeared on behalf of the complainant. Evidence was not tendered on behalf of the OPs and case was adjourned to 16.09.2022, 09.12.2022, 31.01.2023, 10.02.2023 and 11.04.2023 i.e. today. Today, the learned counsel on behalf of the OPs, instead of submission of evidence on behalf of the OPs, by making a separate statement, tendered a claim payment voucher dated 15.07.2020(Annexure R-1) whereby an amount of Rs.15,18,995/- was paid to the complainant on account of claim lodged by him qua damaged vehicle no.HR-21-G-1466 Maruti Suzuki ZDI BSIV. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the statement made by the learned counsel on behalf of the OPs is reproduced as under:-

                “I tender Annexure R-1, claim payment voucher dated 15.07.2020 where by the amount of Rs.5,18,995(Five Lac Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Five only) has been paid to the complainant namely, Rajinder Parsad on account of the claim of the damaged vehicle  no. HR21G1466 Maruti SX4 ZDI BSIV, which had met with an accident on 19.04.2017. The vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Policy No.230011/31/2015/031142 for the period from 11.10.2013 to 10.10.2014. Neither the complainant nor his counsel has been coming in the court since 2020 & further no evidence has been adduced by the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint may kindly be dismissed”.

5.             The complainant in the present complaint has claimed the following relief:-

1. The OPs be directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of the accident after settling the claim as total loss.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.55,000/- towards litigation expenses and counsel fee.

6.             As stated above, the complainant has not submitted any evidence on record to show the claim amount. However, the OPs in its written statement has admitted that  the loss was assessed by the surveyor on total loss basis and claim of Rs.6,08,995/- was approved, subject  to completion of usual formalities such as deposit of salvage by the complainant after the cancellation of superdari. It is evident, as per order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the learned ACJM, Panchkula in FIR No.53 of 2015 under Section 304-A IPC, PS. Chandi Mandir that the accidental vehicle was released on superdari to the complainant. Since Superdari order was not got cancelled by the complainant, the claim was closed as no claim by OP vide letter dated 04.04.2018.

7.             Pertinently, the claim of Rs.6,08,995/- was approved by OPs as per letter dated 05.03.2015 subject to certain conditions including that of delivery of the damaged vehicle to OPs. The OPs have released the payment of sum of Rs.5,18,995/- vide claim payment voucher (Annexure R-1). We have no information qua the delivery of damaged vehicle to the insurance company or qua the status of superdari order or the court case. The complainant is not appearing since 11.11.2020 nor any intimation has been received from him seeking leave to appear before the Commission. Even the complainant did not appear in response to notice issued to him through process server on 28.03.2022. In such situation, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to adjourn the case Sine Die till the submission of relevant factual position by the complainant before the Commission and thus, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be at liberty to get the present complaint restored at its original number as and when he is so advised.  

Announced: 11.04.2023

 

 

 

Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal              

                   Member                       Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                 Satpal                                        

        President