State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ravinder Singh vs Branch Manager,National Insurance Co. ... on 13 September, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 13-09-2007 Complaint Case NO. C-206/1998 Shri Ravinder Singh Complainant R/o N-1, Green Park Main, Through New Delhi-110016. Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate. Versus 1. Branch Manager, Opposite Party No.1 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through 13/32, W.E.A. Arya Samaj Road, Ms. Hena Sharma, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. Advocate. 2. The Chief Manager, Opposite Party No.2 National Insurance Co. Ltd., 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) The complainant has through this complaint claimed compensation of Rs.7 lacs with 18% interest on account of alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that bus No.DL-IP-8993 was insured in the name of Late Shri Arjun Singh vide policy No.360700/31/11/40/95/63/6872 for the period 22.2.1996 to 21.2.1997 for Rs.5 lakhs. The insured Shri Arjun Singh wrote his will on 5.3.1996 in favour of complainant, Shri Ravinder Singh and bequeathed his properties including Tata Bus with Registration No.DL-IP/8993 dated 16.5.1994.
3. The said bus met with an accident near Badrinath on 24.5.1996 and had fallen into river 40 ft. below the road and suffered total loss. The FIR was lodged on 24.5.1996 and insurance company was intimated about the accident on 31.5.1996. The OP brought the salvage and kept it in a garage. OP-Company appointed Mr. Abdul Khayum for spot survey and subsequently M/s. K.R. Arora & Co. was appointed for assessment of loss. The Motor Licensing Officer verified the driving license and intimated this fact to the insurance company on 24.4.1997. Insured Shri Arjun Singh had died on 21.1.1997. After 10 months, complainant was informed that the surveyor has allowed the claim of Rs.4,50,000/- but complainant was further communicated that as the branch power was only Rs.3,50,000/- the file would have to be sent to Calcutta but the complainant did not hear anything from the insurance company. The OP has not only been highly deficient in its service but had also indulged in unfair trade practice.
4. OP refuted the allegations made in the complaint and raised the following please in its defence:-
(i) That the complaint is liable to be dismissed because the complainant has failed to furnish the succession certificate or probate despite repeated request from the OPs and has consequently failed to prove that he is the legally constituted heir of the deceased insured Arjun Singh.
(ii) That in the will, under the heading of Testator, no signature of the deceased appears. As a result of which, such a Will is of no legal consequence and is therefore a nullity in the eyes of law. It is denied that the surveyor Mr. K.R. Arora had allowed the claim of Rs.4,50,000/-.
(iii) That as per the surveyors report dated 28.2.1998, the surveyors M/s K.R. Arora & Co. had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,63,500/- only on total loss basis. The complainant is trying to cover his malafide intention of stating false claim by misrepresenting that he is the legal heir of the deceased insured Arjun Singh. The complainant is trying to represent himself as the legal heir of the deceased by way of an unsigned Will which has no validity in the eyes of law.
5. As is apparent the main dispute is firstly as to the quantum of loss assessed by the Surveyor and secondly as to the entitlement of the complainant to receive the compensation. The complainant filed the claim on the basis of Will of the insured. Complainant is the nephew of the deceased. At one stage the earlier counsel for the complainant had made statement that he had applied for probate of the Will but the counsel now states that no probate has been obtained as yet.
6. There is no dispute that it is a case of total loss and so has been observed by the Surveyor. We have taken a view that wherever there is a total loss by way of accident the Insurance Company is obliged to indemnify the loss in terms of the insurance amount less the depreciated value of the vehicle and claim the salvage. In case the insured wants to claim the salvage then the cost of the salvage assessed by the surveyor has to be deducted from the insurance claim.
7. Proceeding on that premise we assess the total loss for Rs. 5 lacs, the insured amount less 10% of the depreciated value as the vehicle was a commercial vehicle.
8. As regards the entitlement of the complainant the, it is based upon the Will executed by the deceased. He happens to be the nephew of the deceased. The will has not been probated yet.
9. In the result the complaint is allowed in the following terms:-
(i) The OP shall pay Rs. 5 lacs less 10% depreciated value towards the loss to the complainant on either producing the probate of the will or the relinquishment deeds and no objection certificate from the other LRs of the complainant.
(ii) In case relinquishment deeds and no objection certificate are produced the OP may also obtain indemnity bond from the complainant while disbursing the above amount.
10. Order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of the above documents from the complainant.
11. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
13. Announced on the 13th September, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj