Haryana

Ambala

CC/39/2015

Dharma Pal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

United INdia Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.Chauhan

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 39 of 2015.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 04.02.2015.

                                                          Date of decision   : 22.09.2017

 

Dharma Pal Sharma son of Sh.Babu Ram Sharma house No.2329/7 Gandhi Colony, Baldev Nagar,  Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1.M/s United India Insurance Company Limited Office at Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City.

2.Globe Toyota through its authorized signatory, Opp. Springfield School, village Sadopur, Ambala-Chandigarh Highway Ambala.

 

….…. Opposite parties.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Jaipal Singh Chauhan, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Vig, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh.G.S.Antal, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a car ETIOS TOYOTA-GD bearing registration No.HR01AH-1709 from OP No.2 on 06.10.2013 and got the same insured from OP No.1 for a period of 06.10.2013 to 05.10.2014 by paying the premium of Rs.26002/- vide policy No.TUI/11092590. On 13.06.2014 when the sons of the complainant were going to Ambala Cantt. then at about near Oberoi Petrol Pump, some stray cow suddenly appeared in front of car and the in order to save the cow son of the complainant applied brakes but a truck which was coming from back side struck in the rear right side of the car. Due to this impact, the driver lost control over the car and the car went in the pits from pully after scrolling down.  The complainant intimated the same to Ops and also got registered DDR No.24 on 14.06.2014 and further took the car to the service centre on the same day vide job order No.BPJ14-000685.  The surveyor appointed by Op No.1 after inspection declared the car as total loss and also obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank papers with assurance that the OP No.1 would pay 100 % cost of the car after deducting formal depreciation of the car. The complainant wrote a letter to the regional Manager of Op No.1 but till today the insurance company has not decided the claim despite receiving huge premium to the tune of Rs.26002/-.  The act and conduct of the Ops clear cut amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered Affidavit Annexure CX and document Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that after intimation about the accident a surveyor was appointed  who after inspection produced his report dated 08.09.2014 and after verification, the insurance company reached to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.3,91,134/- was payable to the complainant on account of loss suffered by him but he declined to accept the same.  The OP No.1 also wrote a letter dated 28.01.2015 to the complainant regarding this that the claim of Rs.3,91,134/- on net of salvage with RC basis has been sanctioned but the complainant has failed to send his account particular for transferring the approved claim amount through RTGS though he had given his consent to OP No.1.  The new car of the same model values Rs.6,75,931/- but in order to fleece the compensation, the complainant got wrong IDV insured for higher value which is violation of basic principle of indemnity. No signatures of the complainant were taken on blank paper by the surveyor.  The surveyor under the impression of value mentioned in the policy assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,34,662/- against the correctly assessed amount of Rs.3,91,134/-. The claim has been approved as per the policy terms and conditions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company and prayer for dismissal of the claim has been made.  In  evidence, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavits Annexure R1, Annexure R1/A and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R17.

3.                OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part. The main grievance of the complainant is regarding non-settlement of the claim by the OP No.1 with regard to the accidental vehicle, therefore, present complaint against it is not maintainable.  The vehicle was brought to the workshop on 17.06.2014 and the complainant had signed if the vehicle is not lifted then he would pay Rs.200/- per day as parking charges. Thereafter, neither the complainant nor the insurance company gave any direction for repairing of the vehicle and regarding this it had written a letter dated 11.02.2015 to complainant for lifting his vehicle and also sent reminder but the complainant in order to avoid the lifting of the vehicle sent a reply by submitting that the vehicle in question is salvage of the insurance company and it would pay the parking charges. Though the complainant had been failed to lift the vehicle despite letters, therefore, he is liable to pay the parking charges w.e.f. 17.6.2014 till date of lifting of his vehicle. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.2 did not lead any evidence and submitted that the reply filed in response to the complaint be read as its evidence. 

4.                          We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                          It is not disputed that the vehicle in question is insured with Op No.1 as per insurance policy Annexure C2 wherein the IDV has been shown as Rs.685662/-  but the invoice qua purchasing of vehicle by the complainant Annexure R7 shows that total amount as Rs.6,75,931/-. Undisputedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 13.06.2014 during the subsistence of the insurance policy having validity from 06.10.2013 to 05.10.2014 Annexure C2. Regarding the accident DDR No.24A-Annexure C3 was registered on 14.06.2014. It is also established on the file that  the surveyor had assessed the loss as per repair basis Rs.7 lac in the column of summary of assessment and the vehicle has been shown as total loss amounting to Rs.6,84,662/- and the  net salvage basis amount of Rs.4,34,662/- has been shown and also recommended. It was also mentioned that the recommendation would be with RC and this mode of settlement would be relieved the insurer on spending extra on transfer of RC, Ware housing charges for storing of salvage, advertisement charges for sale of salvage etc. and this is more economical for the insurer and give the report that after vehicle is repaired it will be roadworthy. The company has issued a letter dated 28.01.2015 Annexure R12 to the complainant wherein it has been mentioned about sanctioning of claim by the competent authority to the tune of Rs.3,91,134/- on net of salvage with RC basis.  Another letter dated 02.02.2015 Annexure R13 has also been issued to the complainant wherein it has been intimated that the claim has been approved subject to the consideration of Wreck value of the vehicle as Rs.2,50,000/- and further gave the direction to the complainant for providing loan account number for making the payment to the bank or if loan is closed provide the No Dues Certificate issued by the bank. The complainant was not agreed with the above said approved amount which was approved vide letter dated 02.02.2015 and thereafter the complainant immediately filed the present complaint on 04.02.2015.  Counsel for the OP No.1 has pointed out that the complainant has given the consent letter and agreed to accept the amount Rs.4,34,662/- (Annexure R-10) and also agreed to received the salvage of the vehicle in question amount of Rs.2,50,000 and the complainant had not received the above said consent amount and the said consent letter has not been acted upon. During the pendency of the complaint OP No.2 filed application for directing the complainant to lift the vehicle in question from the premises of service centre by making the payment  of parking charges Rs.38,988/- w.e.f.24.0.7.2014 to 30.06.2015 and to pay further charges Rs.200/- per day from 01.07.2015 till date of lifting of vehicle.

6.                          On 01.07.2015 Sh.Kuldeep Kumar, Deputy Manager made a statement that they are ready to pay the amount of Rs.3,91,134/- to the complainant for total loss of his vehicle subject to retaining of vehicle costing wreck value of Rs.2,50,000/- by complainant and regarding this complainant has given consent letter. The claim has already been settled and intimation to the complainant has already been sent through registered letter No.5915 dated 02.02.2015.

7.                          The complainant on the same day also made a statement that the vehicle was damaged on 13.06.2014 and he had submitted relevant documents to the Ops. The surveyor had also obtained his signatures on some blank papers   and he is not willing to take the salvage of the damaged vehicle. The vehicle is parked with OP No.2 since 24.07.2014 and parking charges, if any would be imposed upon OP No.1.

8.                          From the perusal of the surveyor report, it is clear that the vehicle in question got damaged in an accident and the same was taken to the Op No.2 for repairs. The IDV of the vehicle has been shown in Annexure C2 as Rs.6,85,662/-. The surveyor in his report has categorically mentioned that the vehicle is totally damaged and also considered the claim on total loss basis by assessing the salvage of the damaged vehicle as Rs.2,50,000/- but the surveyor has recommended the loss to the tune of Rs.4,34,662/- after deducting the salvage which was to be retained by the complainant amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- but the Op/insurance company has not brought the terms and conditions on the case file and even it has failed to show that on which ground it is forcing the complainant to retain the salvage of the accidental vehicle. The complainant has filed the present complaint immediately before this Forum by taking a stand that he is not liable to pay the parking charges as well as to retain the salvage and the complainant in this regard has also made a statement dated 01.07.2015 wherein he has clearly stated that he does not want to take the salvage as it was the duty of the op/insurance company to pay the total loss amount but the OP/insurance company has retained the above said amount without any justification. Inspite of the statement, the OP has failed to pay the assured amount to the complainant whereas the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.6,85,662/- after deducting the compulsory deduction of Rs.1000/- on account of excess clause as the insurance policy was on the basis of Zero Dep Policy. OP/insurance was legally bound to pay the insured amount atleast in the month of July, 2015 at the time of the making the statement during the pendency of complaint on 01.07.2015 and the complainant would have utilized the amount for the purchasing of new car or earn interest and profit by investing the same. OP-insurance company has used the said amount for their personal gain and must have earned interest and profit which cannot be less than 12 % per annum with monthly rests. This Forum further takes judicial notice of the facts that due to non-availability of the car with the complainant he must have suffered pecuniary loss. In such cases op/insurance company does not loose anything and this is the reason that insurer used to prefer repudiation of the claim instead of settling the claim. In the present case, it seems that some practice has been adopted by the OP-insurance company in treating the claim in question. To put a check on aforesaid malpractice being adopted by the company we hereby direct the OP/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation. During the pendency of this complaint OP No.2 moved an application for directing the complainant for lifting the vehicle after making the parking charges w.e.f. 24.07.2014 till 30.06.2015 and to pay further charges @ 200 per day from 01.07.2015 till the date of lifting the vehicle in question.  It is not disputed that the vehicle in question is lying with the OP No.2 but there is nothing on the file to show that due to the fault of the complainant the vehicle is lying with the OP No.2 rather it was for the insurance company to pay the insured amount to the complainant to avoid this situation immediately after lodging the claim being genuine one but it has not been done so, forcing the complainant to approach this Forum by filing a consumer complaint. Hence, we observed that the OP No.1/insurance company is liable to pay the parking charges to the Op No.2 which is assessed at Rs.1000/- per month being genuine one. The OP/insurance company is further directed to pay Rs.6,85,662/- to the complainant after deducting the amount on account of excess clause only as the insurance policy was issued on the basis of Zero Dep. basis alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from 01.07.2015 till realization of the amount. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP No.1/insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:         

1. To pay the ID value of Rs.6,85,662/- (mentioned in policy Annexure C-2) alongwith with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual realization after deducting Rs.1000/- on account of compulsory excess.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as a compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation
3. The Op No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the Op No.2 on account of parking charges from 24.07.2014 till receipt of salvage by the Op No.1 which would be handed over by the Op No.2 within 15 days from the date of the receiving of copy of this order.
4. Complainant is directed to handover the RC after cancelling the same from the competent authority before receiving the awarded amount alongwith subrogation letter and indemnity bond.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 22.09.2017                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

    

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

          Member                                   Member