DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 405 of 2010 Date of Inst: 02.07.2010 Date of Decision:09.03.2011 Vijay Sundram son of Sh.K.Sundram r/o H.No.A-1976, SGM Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Chief Regional Officer. 2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh through its Branch Manager. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Sunil Dixit, Adv. for complainant Sh.Sukhjeet Singh, Adv. for OPs --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Vijay Sundram has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Pay the insurance claim of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft till its realization. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Any other relief to which the complainant is deemed entitled may also be granted. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a used Mahindra Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No.HR-66-2628 from Sh.Sunil Kumar. The said jeep was insured with OPs for insured declared value of Rs.5 lacs for the period from 14.09.2009 to 06.09.2010. After purchase of the car by the complainant, the registration was transferred in favour of the complainant on 08.09.2009 (copy of the registration certificate is Annexure C-1).The insurance policy was also transferred in the name of the complainant on 14.09.2009 (Annexure C-2). According to the complainant, the said jeep was stolen on 29.09.2009. He reported the matter to the police and the F.I.R. No.248 dated 30.09.2009 was recorded in Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant informed the OPs about the theft and also submitted his claim along with the requisite documents. Despite it, the claim has not been settled so far. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 08.06.2010(Annexure C-6) but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OP, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of Sh.Sunil Kumar for the period from 14.09.2009 to 06.09.2010 and the said insurance policy was got transferred in the name of the complainant on 14.09.2009. It has also been admitted that the intimation regarding the theft was received. The case of OPs is that untraced report was not submitted by the complainant in time which resulted delay in settlement of the claim. It has further been pleaded that one Er.Shanti Sawroop Sharma was appointed as surveyor to assess the market value of the vehicle as on 29.09.2009. As per his report, the market value of the vehicle in question was Rs.3,50,00/- at the time of its theft. According to OPs, the claim has been processed accordingly. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The only question which needs to be determined in this case is that whether the complainant is entitled to the insured declared value (Rs.5 lacs) for the loss caused to him due to theft of the vehicle or the market price of the vehicle as assessed by the surveyor on the date of theft? 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that OPs are willing to pay a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs as insurance claim to the complainant as the said amount has been assessed as the market value of the vehicle at the time of its theft by the surveyor vide its report dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure R-1). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that OPs cannot fix the market value of the car arbitrarily on their own. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, at the time of its insurance, the insured declared value of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.5 lacs. OPs have received requisite amount of premium against it. Now at the time of settlement of the claim, OPs cannot turn around and say that the market value of the car has gone down to Rs.3.50 lacs. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited case titled as Dharmendra Goel Versus Oriental Insurance Co. reported in 2008(4) RCR (Civil)-109 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully. The facts as narrated above remain uncontroverted. Admittedly, the accident had happened on 10th September, 2002 during the validity of the Insurance Policy taken on 13th February, 2002 insuring the vehicle for Rs. 3,54,000/- on a premium of Rs. 8,498/-. It is also the admitted position that the vehicle had been declared to be a total loss by the surveyor appointed by the company though the value of the vehicle on total loss basis had been assessed at Rs. 1,80,000/-. We are, in the circumstances, of the opinion that as the company itself had accepted the value of the vehicle at Rs. 3,54,000/- on 13th February, 2002, it could not claim that the value of the vehicle on total loss basis on 10th September, 2002 i.e., on the date of the accident was only Rs. 1,80,000/-. It bears reiteration that the cost of the new vehicle was Rs. 4,30,000/- and it was insured in that amount on 19th January, 2000 and on the expiry of this policy on 18th January, 2001, was again renewed on 19th January, 2001 on a value of Rs. 3,59,000/- and on the further renewal of the policy on 13th February, 2002 the value was reduced by only Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 3,54,000/-. xxxxxxxx It is, therefore, obvious that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a dominant position the insurance companies often act in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay compensation. This `take it or leave it' attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible. We are also unable to accept the submission that it was for the appellant to produce evidence to prove that the Surveyor's report was on the lower side in the light of the fact that a price had already been put on the vehicle by the company itself at the time of renewal of the policy. We accordingly hold that in these circumstances, the company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy on 13th February, 2002. The ratio of the case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, OPs had themselves assessed the market value of the vehicle at the time of its insurance as Rs.5 lacs and now they cannot turn around and say that the market value of the vehicle is Rs.3.50 lacs. The offer of lesser amount is deficiency in service. So the complaint deserves success. 7. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.4.50 lacs only which is clearly lower than Rs.5 lacs which is the insured declared value of the vehicle in question. Therefore, he is entitled to the above said amount of Rs.4.50 lacs only. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as claimed by the complainant towards the loss of the vehicle in question to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.4,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 09.03.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
