CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.387/2013
Sh. G. G. Shivdasani
R/o A-104/2, SFS Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ……Complainant
Versus
Branch Manager
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 04.07.13 Date of Order : .12.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had renewed a house holders package policy namely “Sweet Home Insurance Policy No.215201/148/2012/188 dated 27.04.2011, valid from 28.04.11 to 27.04.2012. He paid a sum of Rs.11,989/- towards premium. On or about 08.03.12 one air conditioner insured for Rs.6000/- under the said policy was damaged and he had informed the OP immediately through proper claim form alongwith estimate of loss of Rs.8000/- as given by the mechanic. The surveyor appointed by the OP found that the repair of the old air conditioner would not be economically viable as such the damaged air conditioner was replaced by a new air conditioner amounting of Rs.32,200/-. The air conditioner purchased by him was also inspected by the surveyor of the OP and he took some photographs of the new air conditioner. He also informed the replacement of the damaged air conditioner by new air conditioner on 02.04.12. The OP vide letter dated 09.08.12 informed him that the competent authority has approved the claim for Rs.500/- only for damaged air conditioner which was insured for Rs.6000/-. He sent various representation/notice requesting them to correct/evaluate the value of the air conditioner and pay the claim. The Complainant has stated that the amount of Rs.500/- worked out by the OP is based on erroneous assumptions and calculation is undervalued, wrong and arbitrary as such is illegal. It is stated as under:-
…… (i) Insured value of the damaged air-conditioner of Rs.6000/-
(ii) Damages/compensation of Rs.50,000/- for injury on account of physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant for denying the reasonable claim amount and not paying the same within reasonable time frame.
(iv) Exemplary damages Rs.50,000/-.
(v) Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the proceedings before this Hon’ble Forum.”
The Complainant has prayed that the relief claimed in paragraph 11 above amounting to Rs.1,26,000/- may be delivered with past, pendent lite and future interest at 18% per annum and any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit may also kindly be granted.
OP in the written statement interalia has stated that on intimation of the machinery breakdown on 08.03.12 by the Complainant they immediately appointed a surveyor to survey and assess the loss arising due to breakdown of the window air conditioner and surveyor submitted his report wherein the loss was assessed for Rs.500/- as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. They informed the Complainant vide letter dated 09.08.12 and subsequent letter dated 07.09.12, 22.11.12, 17.01.13 and 22.03.2013 since no reply/response was received from the Complainant they rightly closed the file on 22.03.2013. The OP has prayed the claim is liable to be rejected.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Ram Sukh, SDM Hauz Khas has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We heard the arguments on behalf of the parties.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had obtained a house holders package policy namely “Sweet Home Insurance Policy No.215201/148/2012/188 dated 27.04.2011, valid from 28.04.11 to 27.04.2012 (copy Annexure-A). He paid a sum of Rs.11,989/- towards premium. On 08.03.12 air conditioner insured was damaged and Complainant had informed the OP immediately through proper claim form alongwith estimate of loss of Rs.8000/- as given by the mechanic. The OP vide letter dated 21.04.12 (copy annexure-B) submitted a final surveyor report wherein the amount paid to the Complainant was Rs.500/- as claim settlement in respect of the A.C. The OP vide letter dated 21.11.2012 informed the Complainant (copy annexure-C) regarding the details of the calculation.
In view of the above it is transpires that the Complainant insured his A.C. for Rs.6000/- vide No.215201/148/2012/188 dated 27.04.2011 which valid from 28.04.11 to 27.04.2012. On 08.03.2012 the AC was not working properly. He had informed the OP and submitted the proper claim form alongwith the estimate of repair of Rs.8000/- given by the mechanic. The surveyor after inspecting the AC had informed the Complainant that it would not be economically advisable to repair the A.C. The OP vide letter dated 21.11.2012 has informed the Complainant the details of the cases wherein they had passed a claim of Rs.500/- in respect of the A.C. wherein the Complainant has insured the AC for an amount of Rs.6,000/-. Hence, there was a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.6,000/- (insurance amount) alongwith 9% interest from the date of submitting the claim, Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigation.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on .12.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
