Punjab

Sangrur

CC/336/2015

Deep Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Randhawa

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    336

                                                Instituted on:      21.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.10.2015

 

Deep Chand son of Shri Chuhar Ram, resident of Jakhal Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Peeran Wala Gate, Sunam Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Randhawa, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Sat Paul Sharma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Deep Chand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant earlier filed a complaint number 597/2014 which was decided by this Forum vide its order dated 7.1.2015 with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint, if not satisfied with the decision of the OP.

 

2.             It is further averred that as per the direction of the Forum the complainant submitted the documents to the OP and after getting the documents, the OP paid only an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- instead of Rs.2,75,000/- as insurance value of the stolen vehicle number PB-10-BV-5959. It is stated further in the complaint that the Op has not complied with the order of the Forum  and as such has paid the less amount as mentioned above. The complainant being not satisfied with the decision of the OP has filed the present complaint.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the Op be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum instead of Rs.2,49,000/- already paid and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP, it is admitted that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint bearing number 597/2014 which was decided vide orders dated 7.1.2015. It is stated further that after submission of the necessary documents by the complainant, the Op paid an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- to the complainant as value of the stolen vehicle. It is denied that the Op has not complied with the orders of this Forum.  It is further stated that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP vide policy number 1117023112P000659203 for the period from 9.8.2012 to 8.8.2013 for Rs.2,75,000/-. It is stated that the vehicle in question was stolen after about 9 months. The complainant lodged a FIR number 74 dated 29.5.2013 under section 379. It is stated further that the market value of the vehicle in question was stated by the complainant in the FIR to be Rs.2,50,000/-, as such the OP has paid the claim after deducting the excess clause.  However, it is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount now from the Op and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 copy of complaint dated 31.10.2014, Ex.C-4 copy of order dated 7.1.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 9.7.2014, Ex.C-6 copy of letter dated 15.9.2014, Ex.C-7 copy of the letter dated 17.12.2014, Ex.C-8 copy of letter dated 5.12.2014, Ex.C-9 copy of letter dated 26.12.2014, Ex.C-10 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-11 copy of bank account details and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of agreement, Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 copies of payment reports, Ex.OP-5 copy of policy, Ex.OP-6 copy of FIR, Ex.OP-7 copy of notice, Ex.OP-8 copy of order dated 7.1.2015 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question bearing registration number  PB-10-BV-5959 from OP for Rs.2,75,000/-  for the period from 09.08.2012 to 08.08.2013, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy, which is on record as Ex.OP-5. It is also on record that the complainant filed a complaint bearing number 597/2014 before this Forum, which was decided on 7.1.2015 vide orders, copy of which on record is Ex.C-4. It is also not in dispute that the Op has already paid an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- on 11.3.2015 through NEFT in the account of the complainant, as is evident from the copy of pass book, Ex.C-11. 

 

7.             Now, the only dispute which remains for determination before us is whether the complainant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- or Rs.2,49,000/-.  We have perused the insurance policy in question, Ex.OP-5, which clearly shows that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.2,75,000/- only, but the OP has paid only an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- to the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the OP on record that why they paid the less amount to the complainant nor shown us any clause whereby the OP was entitled to pay the claim as per the market value.  It is true that the OP was only entitled to deduct an amount of Rs.500/- on account of excess clause, but the OP has stated that they paid the claim on the market value basis as the vehicle was got assessed, whose value was found to be Rs.2,50,000/-.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the Op that they assessed and paid the claim of the vehicle on market value basis.  It is worth mentioning here that since the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.2,75,000/-, it is not open for the OP to assess the claim on lower basis, more so when, the vehicle in question was already stolen and the vehicle was not there even for assessing its value.  There is nothing on record produced by the OP that how they assessed the value of the vehicle, as it depends on various aspects, such as condition of the vehicle etc.  In the circumstances, we feel that the Op is deficient in assessing the market value of the vehicle and by paying the less claim amount to the complainant.  Accordingly, we feel that the Op was liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,74,500/- (Rs.2,75,000/- minus Rs.500/- on excess clause), whereas the Op has paid only an amount of Rs.2,49,000/-, meaning thereby the Op was liable to pay more Rs.25,500/- to the complainant, which were not paid by the Op.

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,500/- being the remaining claim amount. The OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 12, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member