State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajat Goel vs Reliance General Insurance Company ... on 10 March, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.326/2013
Date of Presentation: 12.11.2013
Date of Decision: 10.03.2014
..................................................................................
Rajat Goel, son of Shri Kiran Kumar,
Resident of Sehaj Pal Building, Chapslee,
Lakkar Bazaar, Shimla-171 001.
.......... Appellant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Rain Basera Building, Khalini, Shimla-171 002,
Through its Branch Manager
.......... Respondent
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant:
Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
Mr. Vikram Singh Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocate.
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed.
1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Rajat Goel Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (F.A. No.326/2013) ________________________________________________________________________
2. Appellant owned an Esteem-VXI Car, bearing registration No.HP-03C-1511, which he insured in the sum of `4,11,500/-, with effect from 21.01.2008 to 20.01.2009 with the respondent. Insurance was based upon insured's declared value. Vehicle met with an accident on 26.07.2008. It fell about 500 feet deep into a gorge and was completely damaged as per respondent/complainant. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondent. A surveyor was deputed, who offered to pay a sum of `3,07,000/-, in case the appellant agreed to accept the said amount of money, in full and final satisfaction of his claim. Appellant gave consent for the aforesaid amount of money. Despite the consent letter having been given by the appellant, nothing was paid to him and, therefore, a complaint, under Section of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed by the appellant, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the entire amount of money, for which the vehicle was insured, after making 5% deduction, on account of depreciation, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, and also claimed damages to the tune of `50,000/-.
Page 2 of 7
Rajat Goel Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (F.A. No.326/2013) ________________________________________________________________________
3. Respondent filed a reply, in which, it was admitted that vehicle was insured in the sum of `4,11,500/-, which was the insured's declared value. It was also admitted that vehicle had met with an accident, during the period, when insurance policy was in operation. It was also stated in para-4 of the reply (preliminary objections) that surveyor suggested payment of a sum of `3,07,000/- on 'net of salvage basis.' It was stated that value of the salvage was assessed at `1,04,000/-. However, it was stated that because of appellant's failure to submit various documents, demanded from him, claim had been closed.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that evidence on record shows that the appellant did not supply certain documents, demanded by the respondent and, therefore, his claim was pre-mature. With this observation, learned District Forum has disposed of the complaint, giving a direction to the respondent to intimate the appellant within thirty days, of the passing of impugned order, what documents they require from him (the appellant) and the appellant shall submit such documents within next forty five days and in the next ninety days, the Page 3 of 7 Rajat Goel Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (F.A. No.326/2013) ________________________________________________________________________ claim has been directed to be settled by the respondent.
5. Order has been challenged only by the appellant. His grievance is that when all the documents already stood supplied to the respondent/ its surveyor, learned District Forum, ought not to have disposed of the complaint in the manner it has and instead, an order directing the respondent to pay the entire amount of insurance money, with interest and compensation, should have been passed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. Appeal was not filed within the time, prescribed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, an application for condonation of delay was moved. In para-2 of the application, it was stated that copy of order had been supplied on 27.09.2013 and even within thirty days of the supply of copy, no intimation from the respondent had been received with regard to the documents which he (the appellant) was supposed to supply, though such an intimation was required to be received within thirty days of the passing of impugned order. Reply to the said application for condonation of Page 4 of 7 Rajat Goel Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (F.A. No.326/2013) ________________________________________________________________________ delay was filed by the respondent, in which, they did not deny that they had not sent any communication to the appellant for supply of documents, for want of which, the claim had not been settled.
8. Respondent has not filed an appeal against the impugned order. That means, the order as has been passed by learned District Forum, was acceptable to the respondent. If that is so, the respondent ought to have sent a communication to the appellant, demanding the documents, which it required for processing the claim of the appellant. The conduct of the functionaries of the respondent in not sending the detail of documents required for processing the claim, is relevant. It shows that documents are available with them, as has been the case of the appellant throughout, but they put up a false plea about the documents having not been supplied, with a view to defeating the claim of the appellant.
9. The documents, which as per evidence adduced before the learned District Forum, appellant did not supply, are claim form, estimate of repair and copy of First Information Report. These documents find mention in Annexure R-1, a communication which Page 5 of 7 Rajat Goel Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (F.A. No.326/2013) ________________________________________________________________________ was sent to the appellant. However, in reply to the complaint itself, respondent is silent about the documents, which had not been supplied. In reply, the only thing stated is that the documents required for processing the claim, were not supplied and, hence, the claim had been closed.
10. It is not denied by the respondent that a report was lodged with the police, with regard to the accident. A surveyor was also deputed by the respondent. The said surveyor was supposed to have procured a copy of First Information Report, while conducting the survey. Also, he was supposed to have obtained claim form from the appellant. It can be presumed that he procured these documents, because he obtained a consent letter, Annexure A-2 from the appellant to accept a sum of `3,07,500/- on 'net of salvage basis.'
11. In the reply to the complaint, there is a mention that surveyor recommended payment of `3,07,500/- on 'net of salvage basis', the value of salvage being `1,04,000/-. Now, when the surveyor recommended payment of `3,07,000/- on 'net of salvage basis', where was the requirement of submitting the estimate of repair, because the Page 6 of 7 Rajat Goel Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (F.A. No.326/2013) ________________________________________________________________________ amount recommended by the surveyor suggests that this was a case of total loss.
12. In view of the above stated position, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of `3,07,000/- by way of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, i.e. 14.07.2009, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `20,000/- as compensation and `5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
13. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member March 10, 2014.
*dinesh* Page 7 of 7