DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 325 of 01-12-2008<br /> Decided on : 06-08-2009 <br /> <br /> Jagsir Kumar S/o Birj Lal R/o Bag Colony, Tappa Mandi, District Barnala.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.United India Insurance Company Limited, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda through its Manager.<br /> 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office, 24 Whites Road, Chennai 60014, through its General Manager<br /> 3.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office 2090-B,The Mall, Bathinda 151 001 through its Divisional Manager<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Dhanoa, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations against the opposite parties that he got his car Tata Indigo bearing registration No. PB-13P-4915 insured from opposite party No. 1 for the period from 06-06-2008 to 23-02-2009 and paid the required premium. On 10th July, 2008, this vehicle met with an accident when it was driven by his friend Sh. Harwinder Singh having a valid and effective driving licence when they were returning from Manikaran Sahib. He gave required information to opposite party No. 1 and consequently opposite parties appointed their surveyor to assess the loss. Sh. Vinod Kumar Rana of District Mandi (H.P.) accordingly inspected the damaged vehicle on the spot and he submitted his report to the opposite parties. The vehicle was fully damaged. The complainant continued to approach the opposite parties with the request to settle his claim as per the report of the surveyor, but the opposite parties continued delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and failed to settle the claim. Hence, the opposite parties have been guilty of clear deficiency in service for delaying the settlement of his legal and valid claim without any valid and reasonable cause and therefore, he has sought directions against the opposite parties for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- alongwith interest and has also claimed compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience he has suffered on account of the conduct of the opposite parties for delay to finalise his claim for more than a year.<br /> 2. The opposite parties have contested the allegation by raising legal objections to the effect that this Forum has no jurisdiction; driver of the vehicle Sh. Harvinder Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the complainant was not holding valid registration, fitness certificate and route permit in his name at the time of alleged accident and the complainant failed to produce any repair bill etc., despite repeated requests and reminders. The insured has not incurred any expenditure on repairs of the damaged vehicle and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being premature. The Insured is required to get the vehicle repaired and after that the vehicle is again required to be produced before the surveyor for inspection for final settlement. The complainant was required to supply various documents but he did not care to supply the same and therefore, final report was submitted by the second surveyor Sh. R Goel & Company on dated 15th November, 2008 assessing the net loss to the vehicle of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 93,675.80 and salvage has been estimated to be of Rs. 3,000/-. As such, the opposite parties have liability of Insurance to a limited amount of Rs. 93,675.80 less salvage value. On merits also, same points have been raised by the opposite parties while denying the allegations of the complainant in general.<br /> 3. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 4. The complainant has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1,photocopy of R.C. of vehicle Ex. C-2, photocopy of driving licence Ex. C-3, photocopy of letter dated 11.8.08 Ex. C-4, photocopy of policy Ex. C-5, Photocopies of survey reports Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7 and bill Ex. C-8.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties produced on record affidavits of S/Sh. Balwinder Singh, D.M. and Ramesh Goyal, M.E Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 respectively, photocopy of letter Ex. R-3, photocopy of survey report Ex. R-4, photocopy of claim form Ex. R-5 and photocopies of letters Ex. R-6 to Ex. R-8.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. It appears from the record that Insurance of the vehicle and accident is not denied. Damage to the insured vehicle is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after the accident took place near Mandi in (H.P.), the opposite parties were duly informed and they at their own deputed one Sh. Vinod Kumar Rana, Surveyor & Loss Assessor of Mandi in Himachal Pradesh. Sh. Vinod Kumar Rana inspected the accidental vehicle on the spot immediately after the accident and he also verified the documents of the vehicle alongwith the driving licence of Sh. Harwinder singh who was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. He submitted his detailed report alongwith assessment of loss Ex. C-6. As per this report, he verified registration certificate, driving licence and other particulars of accident and reflected the same in his report Ex. C-6 and the perusal of last para of his report reveals that he also enclosed photocopy of registration certificate, driving licence and Insurance alongwith his report. However, it has been pleaded by the opposite parties in their reply that driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and that registration certificate, fitness certificate, routine permit etc., not produced by the insured. All the averments appears to have been made by the opposite parties in their reply without any base. <br /> 8. The record also reveals that the vehicle was got insured as per Cover Note Ex. C-5 under IDV for a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. According to the complaint the vehicle met with an accident and it resulted in total loss. The surveyor in his report Ex. R-4 has assessed estimated loss to the tune of Rs. 3,24,020/- and after making deductions, he has finally assessed loss at Rs. 93,675.80 and assessed salvage value as Rs 3,000/-. He has not given any reason as to under what provision of rules and regulations, he has assessed the loss more than three times less than the estimated cost and as such, report of the surveyor appears to be whimsical.<br /> 9. The vehicle met with an accident at Hara Bagh in Mandi District of Himachal Pradesh and from there the vehicle has been brought to Tapa Mandi with a recovery van and complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 1400/-.<br /> 10. The complainant has submitted all the documents as per report of surveyor Ex. C-6 and even the second surveyor has submitted his final report Ex. R-4 on 25-11-2008 but the opposite parties have not released any amount or settled the claim of the complainant despite the final assessment as per report Ex. R-4. The documents required by the opposite parties vide letters Ex. R-3 and Ex. R-6 to Ex. R-8 are not relevant in view of the final assessment of loss received by the opposite parties in the month of November, 2008 Ex. R-4.<br /> 11. The complainant is claiming total loss for which he got the vehicle insured i.e. I.D.V amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The report of the surveyor Ex. R-4 is found to be unreliable for the reason that he has assessed the actual payable loss more than three times less than the estimate. Otherwise also, from the perusal of the report Ex. R-4 it reveals that it lacks of any logic as to why a huge amount has been held to be not payable to the complainant. The complainant has got the vehicle insured and he is legally entitled for the reimbursement the loss he has sustained to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- i.e. I.D.V. It was not incumbent upon the complainant to go for repair of the vehicle first at his own expenses and then submit the bill for reimbursement. There is no need to get the vehicle insured and pay premium if this process is required to be followed by a insured. Section '1' of Indian Motor Tariff Ex. C-9, provides that IDV shall be treated as “'Market Value” through out the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total loss/Constructive Total Loss claims and insured vehicle shall be treated as a CTL if the aggregate cost of retrieval and/or repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceeds 75 percent of the IDV of the vehicle. In the instant case, the cost of repairs, as mentioned by the complainant, has exceeded 75 percent of IDV, declared by him at the time of securing the Insurance cover as evident from copy of estimate of repairers submitted by him. This fact has been ignored by the surveyor appointed by the opposite parties. As such, the opposite parties, in our opinion, were not justified in awarding compensation on the basis of his report by over looking the estimate submitted by the complainant. <br /> 12. Once the vehicle is comprehensively insured and it is a case of total loss, then its Insured's Declared Value is payable as has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gurjant Singh & another – First Appeal No. 1342 of 2005 decided on 31.01.2006. <br /> 13. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case since the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (I.D.V) and the Insurance Company has failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time by releasing the insured amount to the complainant to enable him to get the vehicle repaired, the complainant is held to be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- i.e. IDV subject to the condition that the vehicle in its present position alongwith its documents and keys etc., will be handed over to the Insurance Company within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the opposite parties will make the payment to the complainant within 30 days. Since the Insurance Company has not settled the claim within a reasonable time of 3-4 months as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which itself amounts to deficiency in service and therefore, the complainant is also entitled for a reasonable amount of compensation on account of harassment and inconvenience caused to him which, we assess in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The compliance with regard to compensation and litigation expenses be made within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 06 08-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br /> <br />