ORDER

18.10.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant has insured his vehicle bearing no. HR 16G 9455 with OP insurance company vide policy no.1112023112P000311506 on 25.02.2012  valid till midnight 24.05.2013. It is stated that unfortunately the vehicle was stolen on 14.06.2012 and complainant immediately called 100 number from his mobile at 8.34 am. It is further stated that police registered FIR no.222/2012 police station Prashant Vihar, Delhi. It is stated that complainant immediately informed OP insurance company about the theft and FIR was sent through email on 14.06.2012 at 4.51 pm and also lodged claim.
2. It is stated that complainant sent several reminders and also made several personal visits on 16.06.2012, 23.06.2012 and 27.06.2012 for payment of amount insured. It is stated that on 14.07.2013 OP1 had appointed an insurance surveyor and complainant submitted documents with the surveyor which includes original FIR, rent agreement alongwith police verification, copy of insurance policy, original letter of registration authority dated 03.07.2012, copy of bike bill, copy of driving license of Sunil Soni and complainant. It is further stated that surveyor recorded statement of neighbors Mr. Kunal Soni, Mahesh Kumar Raman. A statement of Mr. Sunil Soni was also recorded. It is stated that photographs of the spot and site map was also prepared.
3. It is stated that on 06.09.2012 complainant received a letter from OP1 demanding untraced report and NCRB report which were duly submitted on 19.09.2012. It is stated that aggrieved by the callous attitude of concerned officers complainant sent an application on 31.10.2012 under RTI for seeking information regarding the claim but it was of no avail. It is further stated that complainant received another letter dated 16.11.2012 from OP1 demanding bikes original keys and to transfer the registration certificate in the name of OP1. It is stated that complainant also submitted bond and affidavit on 19.12.2012 and also submitted keys. It is stated that on 20.02.2013 complainant in pursuance of the transferred registration certificate in the name of OP1 and despite abiding by all the formalities OP insurance company did not pass the legal claim and unnecessarily delay on one pretext  or the other.
4. It is stated that in the first week of April 2013 when complainant personally visited OP1 than employee very vaguely refused to entertain. It is stated that on 15.04.2013 complainant received a cheque of Rs.35,400/- which is very less than the insured amount. It is further stated that aggrieved by the callous and despotic attitude of the OP insurance company complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.04.2013 which was duly received on 22.04.2013 and by OP2 on 18.04.2013. The complainant is seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony, pain suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- for transportation cost and legal fees expenses etc. and Rs.2,50,000/- for intentional misconduct and defamation and further seeking Rs.12,100/- balance insured amount. The complainant is seeking interest @ 24% per annum from June 2012 till realization on all the amounts.
5. OP insurance company filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is without any cause of action as complainant has already settled the claim and received the amount through cheque. It is stated that present complaint is malafide intention to extort money. It is stated that surveyor/investigator was duly appointed as per provision and guidelines of IRDA. It is stated that surveyor Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma submitted the evaluation report and assessed the value of the vehicle of Rs.37,500/- and as per valuation report payment was made to the complainant, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is stated that the alleged vehicle was purchased on 15.09.2008 for Rs.62,500/- and used by complainant for about four years. It is stated that in the market it was confirmed that old Apache vehicle  is having market value of Rs.37,000/- to Rs.38,000/-. It is stated that OP insurance company has made the payment of Rs.35,400/- vide cheque no.127240002 dated 22.03.2013 after deducting the compulsory access of Rs.2100/- out of the assess value of Rs.37,500/-. It is stated that after accepting the cheque amount the complainant has filed the false complaint, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that another surveyor was appointed namely Vijay Kumar Arora for second opinion who submitted the report on 08.03.2013. The report of both the surveyors filed on record. It is stated that complainant has settled the claim and received Rs.35,400/- on 22.03.2013, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
9. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit of attorney Sh. Sunil Soni. In the affidavit contents of complaint reiterated. Complainant relied on copy of insurance cover note dated 25.05.2012 and copy of FIR Ex.CW1/1 (colly), copy of email dated 14.06.2012 Ex.CW1/2, copy of letters dated 16.06.2012, 23.06.2012 and 27.06.2012 Ex.CW1/3, the copy of original FIR, rent agreement alongwith police verification, copy of insurance policy, original letter of registration authority dated 03.07.2012, copy of bike bill, copy of driving license of Sunil Soni and complainant Ex.CW1/4 (colly), copy of letter dated 06.09.2012 and NCRB report dated 14.09.2012 Ex.CW1/5 (colly), copy of application dated 31.10.2012 Ex.CW1/6, cop of letter dated 16.11.2012 Ex.CW1/7, copy of letter submission of bond and affidavit and keys Ex.CW1/8 (colly) and copy of transfer registration certificate Ex.CW1/9.
10. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Assistant Manager. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP relied on copy of report of vehicle evaluation Ex.RW1/1.
11. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP insurance company.
12. We have given ample opportunities to complainant counsel and OP counsel to address oral arguments. As per record Sh. Sanjay Kumar counsel for OP appeared on 11.12.2023. Sh. Pawan Rawat proxy for Sh. Vimlesh Kumar counsel for complainant appeared on 22.04.2024. None of the counsels addressed oral arguments. We have gone through the written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP and perused the record.
13. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. HR 16G 9455 and got insurance from OP Insurance Co. for the period 25.05.2012 to 24.05.2013. It is admitted case of the parties that the vehicle was stolen on 14.06.2012 and FIR bearing no. 222/2012 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi. The complainant lodged a claim with OP Insurance Co. The Insurance Co. appointed Surveyor. The Surveyor selected all the requisite documents from complainant and also recorded the statement of neighbours namely Mr. Kunal Soni, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Raman and detailed statement of Mr. Sunil Soni and also taken photographs of the spot. The complainant alleged that he received a cheque of Rs.35,400/- dated 22.03.2013 on 15.04.2013. The complainant alleged that OP Insurance Co. provided deficient services, therefore, liable for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and balance amount of Rs.12,000/- as the insurance was of Rs.47,500/-.
14. As per OP the complainant settled the claim after evaluation of Surveyor namely Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma to assess the value of the old apache vehicle of complainant who was four year old as Rs.37,500/- and a cheque of Rs.35,400/-  accepted by the complainant as a settlement of the claim. The Insurance Co. alleged that due deduction of Rs.2100/- was also done to the assessed amount of Rs.37,500/-. The OP also appointed another Surveyor Sh. Vijay Kumar Arora for second opinion. We have gone through the report of both the surveyors. The complainant has not challenged the fact that his apache vehicle was four year old and he has accepted the cheque of Rs.35,400/-. The complainant alleged that the IDV value was Rs.47,500/- and there is a difference of Rs.12,100/-. This fact is admitted by the OP Insurance Co. that the dispute is only about Rs.12,100/-. In these circumstances it would be appropriate that OP Insurance Co. shall pay remaining Rs.12,100/- as per IDV value as already Rs.35,400/- paid to complainant.
15. On the basis of above observation and discussion we direct OP Insurance Co. to pay Rs.12,100/- alongwith 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till realization and further direct to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and legal costs. The OP Insurance Co. is directed to pay the abovesaid entire amount within 30 days of the receiving of the order. In case of default directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realization. File be consigned to record room.
16. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  18.10.2024.

     SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER