State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company vs Anil Kumar Sharma on 18 March, 2013
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No. 40 of 2013 Date of institution: 31.01.2013 Date of decision : 18.03.2013 National Insurance Company Ltd., through its authorized signatory, R.K.Wali, Manager, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, Regional Office and also at SCO No.813, NAC, Manimajra, U.T.Chandigarh. . Appellant Versus Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh.Tarloki Nath Sharma, resident of House No.1070-A, Sector-28-B, Chandigarh. .. Respondent. Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 For the appellant : Sh.J.P.Nahar, Advocate For the respondent: Sh.S.K.Bansal, Advocate QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder(Retd), President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Per Justice Sham Sunder(Retd) , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties as under ;
i) To release the amount of insurance of the car to the tune of Rs.3,77,135/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 2.2.2012 (the date of submission of Non Traceable Report, original keys and Policy copy by the complainant) upto the date of realization.
ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.
iii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.5500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 2.2.2012 (the date of submission of Non Traceable Report, original keys and policy copy by the complainant) upto the date of realization to the complainant, besides Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being the owner of Tata Indigo CS car bearing registration No.CH01-AC-9609, got the same insured from Opposite Party No.2, vide cover note annexure A-2, for the period from 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.3,77,635/-. When the complainant, alongwith his family members, had gone to Bathinda on 6.5.2011 to attend a marriage function, the said car was stolen. FIR bearing No.42 dated 7.5.2011, copy whereof is annexure A-3, was lodged with Police Station, Bathinda. An intimation of theft was sent to the Branch Manager ROI/II, National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh on 7.5.2011, through email, copy whereof is annexure A-4. An intimation of theft of the vehicle was also sent to the Registering Authority, Sector-17, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 9.5.2011, copy whereof is annexure A-6. Thereafter, letter dated 10.5.2011 followed by letter dated 11.5.2011 annexures A-7 & A-8 alongwith relevant documents were sent to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bhatinda for settling the claim, in respect of the stolen car. No Objection Certificate annexure A-11 was also obtained from the Senior Superintendent of Police, UT, Chandigarh.
The complainant received letter dated 8.9.2011 annexure A-12 from Opposite Party No.3 for submitting the non traceable report duly accepted by the Court, original keys and copy of the Policy. The complainant supplied all the documents and information to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Bhatinda, on 2.12.2011. A detailed letter dated 5.3.2012 annexure A-15 was sent to Opposite Party No.1, after waiting for more than one month. Copies of the letter were also sent to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Thereafter, a telephonic message was received from the Surveyor, on 12.3.2012 requesting the complainant to supply photocopies of the desired documents. The complainant, without entering into any controversy, again sent copies of the documents demanded. The complainant then received a letter from the Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bhatinda, addressed to the Divisional Office, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh, wherein, it was mentioned that it had not received No Claim Bonus certificate from the dealer inspite of repeated phones and letters. The complainant was requested to contact the local dealer Hind Motors ( India) Limited, Chandigarh for issuance of certificate of No Claim Bonus. The complainant then collected it from Hind Motors and sent the same to the National Insurance Company Limited, Bhatinda through fax, vide letter dated 27.3.2012 annexure A-18. Thereafter, the complainant did not receive any intimation. He again sent a detailed letter, to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company at Bhatinda, on 14.4.2012, followed by fax message dated 16.4.2012, copies whereof are annexures A-19 and A-20. Thereafter, legal notice dated 2.5.2012 was served upon the Opposite Parties, requesting them, to settle the claim within 15 days, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, admitted that the vehicle, belonging to the complainant, was got insured with them. It was also admitted that the vehicle, in question, was stolen on the date, mentioned in the complaint. It was also not disputed that the intimation with regard to the theft of the vehicle was given to the Opposite Parties. It was also admitted that the FIR was lodged with the Police Station concerned with regard to the theft of the vehicle.
It was stated that the detail of the previous Policy for the period from 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012 was not mentioned on Policy No. 25041031106120059794.
Therefore, the matter with regard to the receipt of No Claim Bonus, if any, could not be got confirmed, and, as such, the claim could not be settled. It was further stated that a photocopy of the previous policy was obtained by the Counsel of the Opposite Parties, from the Counsel for the complainant, and the matter with regard to No Claim Bonus was got confirmed. It was further stated that the claim in the sum of Rs.3,77,135/-, on total loss basis, in full and final settlement, was approved by the Opposite Parties, subject to completion of all the formalities, vide letter dated 10.9.2012 annexure R-1. It was further stated that the delay in settlement of claim, was because of the reason that the complainant did not supply copy of the Policy for the period from 19.3.2010 to 18.3.2011, to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, it was stated by him, that the documents were received by Opposite Party No.3, on 2.2.2012, as per receipt recorded on the letter annexure A-14, but still the Opposite Parties did not settle the claim. It was further stated that it was required of the Opposite Parties, atleast to settle the claim of the complainant, when all the documents were supplied by him, but they did not do so. It was further stated that the complainant had produced a copy of the application submitted to the Registering Authority for transfer of registration and its receipt issued by the said Authority.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7.. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 &
2.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that a sum of Rs.3,77,135/-, being the Insured Declare Value, on total loss basis, was paid to the complainant, on 7.12.2012, but this fact was not taken into consideration by the District Forum, as a result whereof, it gave a direction with regard to the payment of this amount with interest, to the complainant. He further submitted that the claim could not be settled earlier for want of certificate with regard to No Claim Bonus which could not be obtained from Hind Motors(India) Limited, Chandigarh as the particulars of the previous Policy were not given by the complainant. He further submitted that the transferred registration certificate of the vehicle was handed over by the complainant on 20.11.2012, and, as such, at the most, interest could be granted from that date. He further submitted that even the District Forum was wrong, in granting compensation, in the sum of Rs.11,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that, no doubt, a sum of Rs.3,77,135/-, being the Insured Declared Value, on total loss basis, was received by the complainant on 11.12.2012. He further submitted that the complainant himself submitted No Claim Bonus certificate to the Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that the Opposite Parties could get certificate from Hind Motors had due diligence been exercised in time. He further submitted that since the complainant had already applied for the transfer of registration certificate in favour of the Insurance Company, to the Registering Authority, in case the same was transferred on 20.11.2012, it was not his fault. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, to the extent of grant of interest from 2.2.2012, compensation and costs, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
11. It was admitted that the vehicle, in question, was got insured by the complainant from the Opposite Parties, for the period from 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012 for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.3,77,635/-. There is no denying the fact that the car was stolen. Intimation with regard to the theft was immediately given to the Opposite Parties. Not only this, even the FIR was immediately lodged regarding the commission of theft of car. The claim and the documents were also submitted by the complainant. Admittedly, the car was declared as a total loss. The amount of Rs.3,77,135/-, being the Insured Declared Value has already been received by the complainant, from the Opposite Parties, on 11.12.2012. It appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the District Forum before the order was pronounced on 28.12.2012 and that was why again direction was given by it, for payment of the amount of Rs.3,77,135/-. The direction given by the District Forum for payment of an amount of Rs.3,77,135/-, thus, deserves to be set aside. To this extent, the order of the District Forum requires to be modified.
12. The District Forum awarded interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 2.2.2012, the date of submission of non-traceable report, original keys, and copy of the Policy by the complainant. When all the documents required by the Opposite Parties, were delivered by the complainant, it was required of them, to pay the amount of the Insured Declared Value to him on that very date, but they failed to do so. Had the amount been paid to the complainant on 2.2.2012, he would have invested the same in some bank and earned interest thereon. The District Forum was, thus, right in granting interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3,77,135/- from 2.2.2012. However, this direction of the District Forum requires to be modified, to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3,77,135/- from 2.2.2012 to 11.12.2012, when the aforesaid amount was paid to him.
13. No doubt, the transferred registration certificate was received by the Opposite Parties, on 20.11.2012. However, there was no fault, on the part of the complainant, in this regard. He had applied to the Registering Authority for transfer of the registration certificate immediately after the theft of the car. If the Registering Authority did not transfer the certificate promptly, then the complainant could not be blamed. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant that interest could only be granted from 20.11.2012 and not from 2.2.2012, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. The compensation, which was awarded by the District Forum, is reasonable and fair. It can not be said to be excessive in any manner. Since the compensation of Rs.11,000/- awarded by the District Forum for mental agony and harassment caused is commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the District Forum to this extent deserves to be upheld.
15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
16. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified in the following manner ;
(i) The appellant/Opposite Parties, are directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3,77,135/- from 2.2.2012 to 11.12.2012 (as the amount of Rs.3,77,135/- was paid to the complainant on 11.12.2012).
(ii) The direction, given by the District Forum, for release of the amount of Rs.3,77,135/-, being the Insured Declared Value is set aside, as this amount was paid to the complainant/respondent on 11.12.2012.
(iii) The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, subject to the modification aforesaid, shall remain intact.
17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Sd/-
Pronounced.
(Justice Sham Sunder)(Retd) 18th March,2013 President.
Sd/- (Neena Sandhu) Member *Js STATE COMMISSION (Appeal No.40 of 2013) Present: Sh.J.P.Nahar, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.S.K.Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Dated the March,2013:
ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been modified in the terms depicted therein.
(Neena Sandhu) (Justice Sham Sunder)(Retd) Member President