State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sheo Parkash on 19 October, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.2089 of 2007 Date of Institution: 09.08.2007 Date of Decision: 19.10.2010 1. Senior Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Bhiwani. 2. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Hisar. 3. Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. 4. Chief Managing Director, National Insurance Company Ltd. 3 Middleten Street Post Box No.9229, Calcutta-700001. Appellants (Ops) Versus Sheo Parkash s/o Sh. Ramehswar Dayal, Resident of Village Jatwas, District Mohindergarh at present House No.15-B, Police Colony near Sadar Police Station, Bhinwani. ---Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 30.05.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhiwani whereby complaint No.154 of 2006 filed by the respondent-complainant seeking insurable benefits in respect of insured vehicle Tata Spacio was accepted by granting following relief:-
..we direct the respondents to pay Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. after six months from the date of theft i.e. 13.4.2005 till its final realization. Besides it cost of litigation is also allowed to the complainant, which we quantify at Rs.2000/- . Other reliefs are hereby declined. The order be complied within two months from today. In case of default, the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 12% p.a. on the above said awarded amount from the date of default till its final realization. With these observations, the complaint of the complaint is disposed off.
The brief facts of the present as set out in the complaint before the District Forum are that vehicle Tata Spacio bearing registration No.HR-39T/0176 was purchased by the respondent-complainant for a sum of Rs.4,49,370/- from Telmos Automobiles Pvt Ltd. The aforesaid vehicle was got financed by the complainant from State Financial Development Corporation, Narnaul. The vehicle was got insured from the appellants-opposite parties for the period 14.4.2004 to 13.4.2005. During the intervening night of 12/13.4.2005 the aforesaid vehicle was stolen by some unknown person when it was parked opposite the quarter No.15-B, Police Colony, Bhiwani. The information in this respect was given to the Insurance Company and matter was reported to the Police Station Civil Line, Bhiwani vide F.I.R. No.49 dated 13.4.2005 under Section 379 I.P.C. Despite best efforts by the police, the vehicle could not be traced and as such the untraced report was submitted by the police on 22.6.2005. The complainant submitted claim to the Insurance Company in respect of the loss suffered by him, but the opposite parties did not settle the claim despite issuing legal notice through Shri Pawan Kumar Garg, Advocate. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement, they denied any kind of deficiency of service with the averments that the complainant had not submitted the required documents for settlement of his claim despite various letters dated 21.01.2006; 02.02.2006; 16.02.2006 and 16.03.2006 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. However, it was admitted that the untraced report was submitted by the complainant after closing the claim of the complainant by the Insurance Company and thereafter the case of the complainant was processed for a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- and the said amount was offered to the complaint but he did not accept the same. It was further pleaded by the opposite parties that they were still ready to pay the amount of Rs.3,39,000/- to the complainant subject to completing the necessary formalities and on transfer the vehicle in favour of the opposite parties after filing subrogation letter. The opposite parties further stated that they had written letter to the Registering Authority, Hisar and to H.S.D.F.C. for transferring the same in the name of the opposite parties and the complainant was informed telephonically in this regard and was asked to submit the above transfer papers and subrogation letter in favour of the Insurance Company, however, the complainant failed to do so. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In order to prove their respective claims, both the parties adduced evidence before the District Consumer Forum. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint by granting relief as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Hence, this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellants-opposite parties it is contended by Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate that after obtaining the Insurance Policy, the vehicle had run for a year and therefore, the valuation of the vehicle was ascertained as per the market rates. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that in total loss/constructive total loss claims, a claim is to be assessed as per IDV and in case of theft, the assessment of market value has to be made at the time of loss for settling the claim. In the instant case the market value was short of IDV by about Rs.20,000/-. The Insurance Ombudsman of the Insurance Company had agreed with the interpretation of the valuation of the Insurance Company and thus the claim of the complainant was rightly assessed at Rs.3,39,000/-. Mr. Suri further contends that the appellants-opposite parties are still ready to pay the amount decided on 20.06.2006 subject to fulfilling the requisite formalities i.e. Registration Certification duly transferred in favour of the appellants-opposite parties alongwith upto date tax paid, letter of subrogation and Power of Attorney and other formalities required for the purpose.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced on record, it cannot be disputed that the claim of the complainant was rightly assessed at Rs.3,39,000/- subject to furnishing of necessary documents required for payment of the claim, but as the complainant did not submit the documents, the insurable benefits were not paid.
Taking into account the facts of the present case coupled with evidence produced by the parties, it would be in the interest of justice if the appellants-opposite parties are ordered to pay the amount of Rs.3,39,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum subject to furnishing of the required documents by the complainant in favour of the appellants-opposite parties i.e. transfer of the Registration Certification in favour of the appellants-opposite parties alongwith, letter of subrogation, and Power of Attorney. However, the awarded amount shall carry interest from the date on which the complainant would complete the aforesaid formalities and after completion of the aforesaid process, the appellants-opposite parties immediately shall make the payment of the awarded amount to the complainant by issuing notice in writing in this respect. The litigation expenses is quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
The impugned order is modified on the terms indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: (Justice R.S. Madan) 19.10.2010 President (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member