Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/133/2015

Harnek Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Aggarwal,Adv

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	133 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	13.03.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30.09.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Harnek Singh son of Nachhatar Singh, resident of House No.1226, Sector 34/C, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Regd. Office: SCO 72, 1^st Floor, Swastik Vihar, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula 134109

 

2^nd Address:  Plot No.EL 94, T.T.C.Industrial Area, Mhape, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai 400710

 

2]  Joshi Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and also known as Harmony Honda, Through its Managing Director, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate

                             

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Sahil Abhi, Advocate for OP-1.

                              Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for OP-2.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

         As per the case, the car of the complainant i.e. Honda Accord/2.4AT bearing Regd. No.CH-04-C-2499, purchased from Opposite Party No.2 (Ann.C-5) on 12.2.2014, was  also got insured by Opposite Party No.2 vide Ann.C-2 &  C-3.  It is averred that the said car on 21.6.2014 met with an accident wherein the said vehicle was completely damaged.  Subsequently, DDR dated 21.6.2014 was registered with Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh (Ann.C-6). It is also averred that the said car after being released from the policy custody on 15.7.2014, was towed to the service station of Opposite Party No.2 for its repair.  The Opposite Party No.2 further informed Opposite Party No.1 regarding accidental repair and claim with a further request to deploy surveyor to assess the loss.  The surveyor after conducting the survey declared the vehicle as total loss case.  It is submitted that the complainant was called upon to fulfill the requirement of providing certain necessary documents with respect to the disbursement of the amount i.e. Rs.10,71,792/- to be paid within week’s time.  However, the complainant was shocked to receive letter dated 19.11.2014 (Ann.C-7) whereby the Opposite Party NO.1 bluntly settled the said claim on Total Loss basis for Rs.8,15,000/- only which was on the lower side as to the Insured Declared Value (IDV). However, the complainant while tendering his undertaking through affidavit to Opposite Party No.1 as asked for, used a prefix ‘U.P.” (Under Protest). Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice dated 10.2.2015 (Ann.C-8) but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 (Universal Sompo General Insurance) has filed reply and admitted the insurance of the vehicle in question.  It is submitted that a claim was lodged by the complainant regarding the damage of the car in question with Opposite Party NO.1 and the said claim was closed as ‘no claim’ vide letter of Opposite Party NO.1 dated 29.12.2014 on account of non-submission of documents i.e. consent letter for Rs.6,78,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim in terms of survey report of M/s Arora Associates dated 24.2.2015 and receipt of cancellation of registration certificate. It is pleaded that the car in question was purchased by the complainant for Rs.7,50,000/- only, but this fact was not disclosed by Mr.Harnek Singh to Opposite Party No.1, so the correction in IDV could not be done by the Opposite Party resulting previous IDV of Rs.10,71,792/- passed to the complainant during endorsement which was actually not correct.  However, the complainant is claiming the compensation of Rs.10,71,792/- being the IDV value which amounts to enrichment though the vehicle was purchased for Rs.7.50 lacs only.  The IDV value cannot be more than the purchase value. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.2 has filed short reply thereby admitting the sale of the vehicle in question as well as issuance of insurance policy by Opposite Party No.1.  It is stated that the settlement of insurance claim is the prerogative of Opposite Party No.1.  Other allegations have been denied for want of knowledge as well as being related to Opposite Party No.1, with a prayer to dismiss the complaint qua it.

3]       The complainant has also filed replication/rejoinder to the reply filed by the Opposite Parties thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

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

 

6]       There is no denial of the fact that the vehicle bearing Regd. No.CH-04-C-2499 was insured with the Opposite Party No.1 vide policy Ann.C-3 valid from 12.2.2014 to 11.2.2015 in the name of M/s Joshi Automotives Private Limited i.e. Opposite Party No.2 for IDV (Insured Declared Value) of Rs.1071792/- (Ann.R-1).  The fact is also admitted that the aforesaid policy was endorsed/transferred in the name of the complainant on 11.3.2014 (Ann.R-2).  This is also on record that the said car was purchased by the complainant vide Sale Receipts No.10290, dated 12.2.2014, No.10289, dated 12.2.2014 (Ann.C-1 & C-2) issued by Opposite Party No.2 in favour of the complainant, along with insurance certificate-cum-insurance policy schedule (Ann.C-3 & C-4).

 

7]       Unfortunately, the vehicle in question met with fatal accident on 21.6.2014 wherein the said vehicle was completely damaged and a DDR dated 21.6.2014 was got registered with Police Station Section 26, Chandigarh (Ann.C-6) and the same was impounded by the police.  The vehicle in question, after being released from the policy authorities, on 15.7.2014 was towed to the Service Station of Opposite Party No.2 for its repair, who further informed Opposite Party No.1 regarding accidental repair and claim that a further request to deploy Surveyor to assess the loss. 

8]       The record reveals that the said Surveyor being appointed by Opposite Party No.1 declared the damage to the vehicle as Total Loss vide its report dated 24.2.2015 (Ann.R-4) claiming that as per our casual observation, the repairing cost goes beyond Insured Declared Value (hereinafter to be referred as IDV) & may be goes more after opening up of all sub assemblies.  All the facts narrated above are duly proved on record and also admitted by the OPs.

 

9]       The basic issue involved in the present complaint is that the complainant was denied compensation based on the IDV of the vehicle as shown in the insurance policy i.e. Rs.10,71,792/-. Now by filing the present complaint, the complainant claimed the full IDV of Rs.10,71,792/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the IDV from 15.7.2014 till realization along with compensation and litigation expenses.

 

10]      The Opposite Party No.1 denied the payment based on IDV of the vehicle as shown in the policy.  It is submitted by the counsel for Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from M/s Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.7,50,000/- as evident from the payment receipt of the dealer (Ann.R-3) and this fact was not disclosed by Mr.Harnek Singh i.e. complainant to Opposite Party No.1, so the correction in the IDV could not be done by Opposite Party No.1, resultantly the previous IDV of Rs.10,71,792/- passed on to the complainant during endorsement, which was actually not correct.

 

11]      The ld.Counsel for Opposite Party NO.1 further claimed that as the complainant failed to disclosed the purchase value of the vehicle in question, it tantamounts to non-disclosure of the material facts, thereby making the policy void.  It is claimed further that the insurance policy is a policy to indemnify and not for enrichment.  Claimed further that the IDV of the vehicle cannot be more than the purchase value.  So, the claim was settled by the Opposite Party NO.1 on the basis of the price paid by the complainant for the same and also on the net of salvage basis.  It is further submitted that as the complainant failed to submit the requisite documents despite repeated reminders, hence vide letter dated 29.12.2014 they proceeded with the closure of the said file as ‘No Claim’ (Annexure R-9).

 

12]      The record reveals that Opposite Party NO.1 settled the claim qua vehicle in question on Total Loss Basis/Net of Salvage Basis for Rs.8,15,000/- (Ann.C-7). 

 

13]      It is important to mention here that at the time of final arguments, the ld.Counsel for Opposite Party NO.1 has offered Rs.9.00 lacs to the complainant to his complete claim, which has been refused by the complainant. 

 

14]      In our considered opinion, this settlement of the claim is absolutely absurd and unjustified. Ann.R-1 i.e. Policy Certificate cum Policy Schedule along with terms & conditions duly provides on Page No.3 under Column SUM INSURED – INSURED’S DECLARED VALUE (IDV) that the IDV of the vehicle is to be fixed on the basis of the manufacturer’s listed selling price of the brand and model. Therefore, how does it matters to Opposite Party No.1 to look into the fact that for what amount the complainant had purchased the vehicle while settling the claim in question.  It hardly makes any difference that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle for less of the price, which definitely does not reduce the actual IDV as assessed by the insurance company itself i.e. Opposite Party NO.1.  It is abundantly clear that the said policy as well as the vehicle in question was got transferred in the name of the complainant just within a month from the date Opposite Party No.1 assessed its value for the purpose of insurance.  It was incumbent on the Opposite Party No.1 to prove that how the complainant is entitled to less amount than the IDV of the vehicle, which it failed to prove by any cogent and reliable evidence.  Here we would like to add that the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party No.1 in the present complaint has exceeded its authority by adjudging the claim amount to be paid to the complainant. As per the guidelines of the Apex Authority of the Opposite Party NO.1 i.e. IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority), the main function of the Surveyor is to assess the actual damage in terms of money only and to submit its report with the Insurance Company for its final decision.

 

15]      We have also gone through the following case laws cited by the complainant as well as Opposite Party NO.1:-

 

By Complainant:-

1. Chaitanya Prasad & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (1) CPC 139 (NC);
2. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance & Others Vs. Nikhil Syal, 2014(1) CLT 337 (NC);
3. New India Assurance Vs. Shanveen, 2013(3) CLT 523 (Kerala State Commission);
4. Mrs.Laxmi Ramesh Sarda Vs. The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (4) CLT 596 (NC);
5. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Binakiya (Dr.), 2012 (2) CPC 364 (NC);
6. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh, 2009(1) CPC 426 (NC);
7. Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 Supreme court Cases 279

 

BY Opposite Party

1. Nirmal Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2012) CPJ 641 (NC);
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Munni Bano, IV(2005) CPJ 228 (Rajasthan State Commission);
3. Ankur Surana vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, I(2013) CPJ 440 (NC);
4. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gulzari Singh, II (2010) CPJ 272 (NC);
5. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., I(1995) CPJ 28 (NC).

 

16]      We are of the conserted opinion that the amount settled by Opposite Party No.1 for the damaged vehicle in question is not justified.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for full IDV of the vehicle in question.  By withholding the genuine claim of the complainant, certainly the Opposite Party No.1 rendered deficiency in service to the complainant.

 

17]      Furthermore, during the pendency of the complaint, the Opposite Party NO.2 issued a letter dated 22.5.2015 claiming parking charges from the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,24,500/-.  However, in our opinion, the complainant is not liable to pay the said parking charges to Opposite Party No.2 because the delay in settlement of the claim had occurred due to deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Party No.1. 

      

18]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

        

a]  To pay Rs.10,71,792/- to the complainant, being the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim till it is paid;

 

b]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service.

 

c]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest, on the above awarded amount of Rs.10,71,792/- from the date of lodging of the claim and also on the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing this complaint, at the rate of 18% per annum, till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.7,000/-. 

 

19]      The complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that Opposite Party No.2 is not entitled to claim parking charges from the complainant.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30.09.2015          

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.133 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 30th day of September, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member

 

 

.