BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Kulwant Singh Dadhwal son of Ram Parkash Dogra, House No.228, Sector 60, Phase 3BI, SAS Nagar Mohali.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.        United India Insurance Company, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

2.        United India Insurance Company, SCO No.149-150, Sector 8, Chandigarh through its Senior Divisional Manager.

3.        Oriental Bank of Commerce, SCO No.525, Sector 70, SAS Nagar Mohali through its Branch Manager.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH. ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI               PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Mukand Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OPs 1 & 2

OP-3 exparte.

PER SHRI RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 20.8.2008 the complainant purchased a new Indica car from Hind Motors after taking a loan of Rs.3.00 lacs and got the same insured with the OP for the period 20.8.2008 to 19.8.2009 after paying premium of Rs.9,008/-.  On 21.8.2008 when he was returning from Delhi near Panipat the car met with an accident and was badly damaged regarding which DDR was lodged on 22.8.2008.  He informed the OP,  who initially appointed the spot surveyor  and thereafter the regular surveyor who submitted his report on 10.11.2008 recommending Rs.1,20,000/- with the salvage value with RC and Rs.1,96,952/-  for total loss with R.C.  He supplied all the documents but the OP settled the claim only during the pendency of the complaint which caused lot of mental and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply, the OPs 1 & 2 admitted the factual matrix.  It has been submitted that after the report of the surveyor dated 10.11.2008, the case was given for re-investigation to Sh. Anurag Midha, Investigator as  it was a close proximity case i.e. the cover note was issued on 20.8.2008 and the accident took place on 22.8.2008, who gave his report on 25.2.2009.  Thereafter the OP released the amount of Rs.1,96,592/- vide cheque dated 27.11.2009 as per the report of the surveyor and keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the approval granted by the competent authority. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             OP-3 did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record.

6.           During the pendency of the case, the complainant has filed the amended complaint dated 22.02.2010, in which it has been admitted by the complainant in para 6 that that he had received the cheque of Rs.1,96,952/-(wrongly mentioned as Rs.19,692) under protest.

7.           Annexure C-2 is the cover note no. 60818 for insurance and Annexure C-3 is the insurance package policy which shows that the vehicle of the complainant was insured from OP-1 and OP-2 for the period 20.08.2008 to 19.08.2009. Annexure C-6 is the survey report which shows that on 22.08.2008 at 4.30 p.m., the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and the survey report was prepared on 10.11.2008.

8.           The main grouse of the complainant is that the accident took place on 22.08.2008 and the survey report was submitted to the Insurance Company (OP-1 and OP-2) on 10.11.2008 by the surveyor but the OPs-Insurance company had paid the amount of insurance claim on 27.11.2009, i.e. after a long period of about more than 12 months, therefore, he is entitled for interest on Rs.1,96,952/- for the period from 10.11.2008 to 27.11.2009. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 argued that the surveyor submitted his detailed report dated 10.11.2008. As it was a close proximity case (being an early claim), the case was handed over to Sh. Anurag Midha, Investigator to reinvestigate the case.  Sh. Anurag Midha, Investigator submitted his investigation report dated 25.02.2009 and thereafter an amount of Rs.1,96,952/- was released to the complainant vide cheque dated 27.11.2009 i.e. after a further period of 9 months or so.

9.           We do not find any merit in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2.  Annexure R-3 is the investigation report of Sh. Anurag Midha, Investigator in which he has opined that ‘In view of the facts stated above & circumstantial evidence available, we are of the opinion that cover note no. 60818 was issued by the Dealer/Agency, M/s Hind Enterprises on 20.08.08 at 12.45 p.m. and the risk commenced w.e.f. 20.08.08 to 19.08.09 and the accident occurred in the early morning of 22.08.08 at 4.00 a.m.’  Hence, nothing contrary has been proved in the survey report of the surveyor Annexure C-6 dated 10.11.2008 is the final Survey Report and the close proximity investigation report of Sh. Anurag Midha, dated 25.02.2009, is at (Annexure R-3). From the above details of the case, it is quite clear that OP-1 and OP-2 have arbitrarily and unreasonably delayed the settlement of claim of the complainant.   Therefore, we are of the view that after allowing a reasonable grace period of 02 months for processing the close proximity investigation report dated 25.02.2009 (Supra), the complainant is entitled to the interest w.e.f. from 25.04.2009 to 26.11.2009 on the amount of Rs.1,96,952/- withheld by OP-1 and OP-2.

10.          Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, in our considered opinion, the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and it must succeed.  We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OPs 1 & 2 and pass the following directions:-

a.      The OPs 1 & 2 shall calculate the interest @9% on the amount of Rs.1,96,952/- from 25.04.2009  to 26.11.2009 and to pay it to the complainant.

b.      The OPs 1 & 2 shall further pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony  and pain to him.

c.       The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

              The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay the aforesaid amount at (a) and (b) above along with penal interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the original complaint i.e. 29.10.2009 till its realization, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

11.          Since the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service against OP-3, therefore the complaint as qua OP-3 stands dismissed.

                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.