DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC. No. 129 of 17-03-2010 Decided on : 19-11-2010
Paramjeet Singh Sobti S/o Late Sh. Mangat Singh Sobti, aged about 50 years, R/o Q. No. C-53, NFL Colony, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager. ... Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. K.S.Brar, Counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. S.M. Goyal, counsel for the opposite party.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is owner of Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL-3CV-0457 manufactured by Hyundai Motors Limited Model 2001 which was got comprehensively insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 200400/31/00002142 effective from 2-8-2007 to 1-8-2008 and IDV of the vehicle was 1,50,000/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 24-02-2008 with Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. HP-12A-5076 within revenue limits of PS Saraba Nagar Ludhiana, and FIR No. 28 dated 24-2-2008 was got registered in this regard. An intimation of the accident was given to the opposite party who deputed its surveyor. The surveyor of the opposite parties obtained all the documents necessary for settlement of the claim of the complainant and also obtained his signatures on some blank papers and told the complainant that car of the complainant was a total loss. The opposite party failed to settle the claim within stipulated period. The opposite party paid Rs. 69,500/- to the complainant vide cheque No. 817871 dated 31-03-2009 drawn on HDFC Bank on account of claim whereas Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question was Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant received the said claim amount under protest and written intimation regarding the same was given to the opposite party. The complainant alleged that since the vehicle in question was a total loss and was not repairable, it is still lying parked in Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. The surveyor of the opposite party obtained signatures of the complainant on blank vouchers, blank consent letter and some other blank papers with the understanding that car was a total loss and even as per rules of Indian Motor Tariff, full claim was payable if the claim was more than 75%. The complainant alleged that he signed the blank papers on the assurance of the surveyor of the opposite party that insured vehicle has been declared as total loss and full amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- would be paid to him. The complainant requested the opposite party time and again to pay the balance claim amount, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint seeking direction of this Forum to the opposite party to pay balance claim amount alongwith compensation and cost. The opposite party filed its written statement and taken legal objections that he has received the claim amount as full and final as per report of the surveyor and had executed necessary documents in this behalf and as such now he is estopped from demanding any other amount and also from filing this complaint. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant has not cooperated the processing of survey intentionally and as such, had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. He had not supplied all the documents as required. It has been denied that any person ever obtained signatures of the complainant on any blank paper or any person on behalf of the opposite party had ever stated or told the complainant that the car of the complainant was of total loss. The legal valid, proper, genuine claim after inspection of damaged vehicle as assessed by the competent, independent surveyor who are duly licensed from IRDA, was paid as full and final payment to the complainant by the opposite party. It has been submitted that IDV did not mean that for all accident the complainant became entitled to maximum amount of IDV, rather the IDV amount was the maximum amount payable as claim but in the present case, the amount of loss was assessed only to the tune of Rs. 69,500/- which had already been paid to the complainant without any protest or objection. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. We have heard the arguments at length and have gone through the record and perused written submissions submitted by the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that vehicle of the complainant was comprehensively insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 02-08-2007 to 01-08-2008 and IDV of the vehicle was 1,50,000/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 24-02-2008 and FIR was registered on the same day under Section 279/427/337/338 IPC against the driver of Bolero Jeep with which the accident took place. The surveyor was deputed to settle the claim who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 69,500/-. This payment was received by the complainant under protest vide cheque No. 817871 dated 31-03-2009 against the Insured's Declared Value of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a written intimation in this regard was given to the opposite party. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the surveyor of the opposite party took signatures of the complainant on some blank papers. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as he has not supplied all the required documents. He denied that any signatures of the complainant were obtained by the surveyor on any blank document. The learned counsel for the opposite party further submitted that the surveyor never told the complainant that his vehicle was a total loss. The complainant had been paid full and final claim as assessed by the surveyor vide cheque dated 31-03-2009 to the tune of Rs. 69,500/- and he has received the same without any protest. The vehicle of the complainant was comprehensively insured for the I.D.V. of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the period of 02-08-2007 to 01-08-2008. The complainant wrote a letter Ex. C-7 wherein he has mentioned that he has received only payment of Rs. 69,500/- vide Cheque No. 817871 dated 31-03-2009 against total damage of his Car No. DL3CV-0457against IDV of Rs. 1,50,000/- and he received the said cheque under protest as he was in dire need of money due to accidental injuries. Ex. C-13 is the letter written by J. Lal & Co. Surveyors and Loss Assessors to the Regional Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ludhiana, wherein the said surveyor has written that as on date of loss the value of the car in question is 1,25,000/- and the wreck value may fetch around Rs.55,000/- with RC and without RC. around Rs. 40,000/-. Sh. Ashok Chawla of M/s. A K Enterprises, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, deputed by the opposite party to assess the loss of the car in question, has prepared his detailed report Ex. C-15 and opined at page 10 of his report that “Since the loss assessed is more than 75% of IDV, therefore, it is a clear case of Total Loss and we give our opinion on Total Loss Basis.” However, he has mentioned the Loss value assessed, agreed by insured as Rs. 1,25,000/- whereas the vehicle was insured for the IDV of Rs. 1,50,000/- and in case of total loss, the Insured's Declared Value has to be paid to the insured without any deductions. The opposite party have raised objection that the complainant has received the amount of Rs. 69,500/- as full and final and has executed necessary documents in this behalf and as such, now he cannot claim any other amount. This objection of the opposite party is not tenable as the complainant in his letter Ex. C-7 has clearly mentioned that he received the said cheque under protest as he was in dire need of money due to accidental injuries. Thus, if the complainant has signed any document in this context, he signed the same under coercion as he was in dire need of money. The support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case titled 2008(II) CPJ 261 (NC) Abhay Neelawarne Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., wherein it has been held :- “...Insurance – Full and final settlement of claim – Coercive bargaining – Insurance Company harasses consumer by compelling him to sign discharge voucher in full and final settlement of claim – Coercive method adopted by insurer requires to be curtailed – Insurer cannot be permitted to take away legal right of insured, seeking redressal of grievances – Complainant resisted coercive demand to sign voucher in full and final settlement of claim - Amount not paid by insurer – Deficiency in service proved – Amount paid after directions of State Commission – Insurer liable to pay interest for delayed payment of amount. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the claim on total loss basis and in the case of total loss, Insured's Declared Value is payable. The Insured's Declared Value of the vehicle in question on the date of loss was Rs. 1,50,000/- after deducting excess clause of Rs. 500/- the amount payable becomes Rs. 1,49,500/-. The complainant has already received an amount of Rs. 69,500/- vide Ex. C-3. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the remaining amount of claim. The wreckage worth Rs. 55,000/- alongwith R.C will remain with opposite party ie. Insurance Company. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The parties are directed to do as under :- a) The complainant will transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of opposite party within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. b) The opposite party will pay the claim amount of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith cost and compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of letter of subrogation/from the date of receipt of transfer of ownership of the vehicle.
The compliance of this order be done within 45 days in total from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record. Pronounced 19-11-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
