State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Pritpal Kaur vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 15 May, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/132/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/03/2017 in Case No. Execution Application No. EA/137/2016 of District DF-II) 1. Mrs. Pritpal Kaur Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh PRESIDENT DEV RAJ MEMBER PADMA PANDEY MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 15 May 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 132 of 2017 Date of Institution : 11.05.2017 Date of Decision : 15.05.2017 Mrs. Pritpal Kaur, Aged 80 years, resident of House No.239, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. ......Appellant V e r s u s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office through Regional Manager, behind K.C. Cinema, Sector 17B, Chandigarh .......Respondent Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 31.03.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Execution Application No. 137/2016. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Mr.H.S.Chawla, advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Appellant/Decree holder/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 31.3.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), partly allowing execution application bearing No.137 of 2016 filed by her.
2. As per facts on record, a car owned by the appellant met with an accident on 2/3.11.2013 at about 11.45 p.m. at Chandigarh. It was a case of total loss. As per surveyor appointed by the respondent/OP, loss was assessed at Rs.6,77,964/-. When her claim was not processed, she filed a consumer complaint bearing No.524 of 2015 which was allowed by the Forum, referred to above, on 28.3.2015, granting her the following relief ;
To pay to the complainant the IDV (Insured Declared Value) of the vehicle i.e. Rs.6,15,000/- (Ann.R-4) minus Less Excess Clause i.e. Rs.4075/-, being the case of total loss, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of assessment of loss by the Surveyor i.e. 18.6.2014 till actual payment.
To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, agony, harassment.
To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
The salvage shall be retained by the Opposite Party (Insurance Company).
The amount awarded was ordered to be paid within fixed period, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.
3. To realize the amount awarded, the complainant filed an execution application on 11.8.2016. When notice was issued, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.6,73,576/- and withheld an amount of Rs.1,50,000- towards value of the salvage. It was claimed that the salvage had already been disposed of by the complainant. To the contrary, it was claimed by the complainant that the above averment was incorrect. She had not disposed of the salvage, as alleged, rather it was the OP who had disposed of the salvage to one Nintu. In the process of taking decision, the respondent/OP placed on record a copy of an application asking the appellant to handover salvage to the OP. However, it was not done. It was specifically stated that the salvage had already been sold to one scarp dealer against payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. To say so, investigation report was placed on record as R/5. With this report, two receipts were added showing that the complainant had sold the salvage to one Manpreet Singh for Rs.1,50,000/-. One of the receipts placed on record further showed that an amount of Rs.12,000/- was paid to the workshop where salvage of the vehicle was kept. By taking note of the above said facts, the execution application was disposed of by observing that salvage of the car was sold by the complainant. Payment of an amount of Rs.6,73,576/- was held to be justified. When passing above said order, it was observed as under :
"To resolve the issue we have meticulously gone through the record before us and are of the opinion that the OPs are right in their stand that the complainant has herself sold the salvage to some third person as receipts appended with the investigator's report dated 1.10.2016 (Annexure R/Y) proves that the complainant sold the salvage to one Manpreet Singh. In the affidavit filed by the complainant of one Sh. Nintu he deposed that he purchased the vehicle in question from insurance company. But surprisingly in the said affidavit the deponent Mr. Nintu in para NO.4 states as under:-
"That the deponent approached S. Manpreet Singh so many times for the transfer of the car in deponent's name but he had failed to transfer the vehicle/car in question and ultimately the deponent approached Pritpal Kaur and her family members after noting the address from the RC of the vehicle /car in question."
This discloser made in para No.4 of the affidavit filed by the complainant clearly establish that the salvage of the vehicle in question was sold by the complainant to a third person namely Manpreet Singh and thus, the OPs are not under any obligation to pay on account of salvage which was certainly sold by the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-."
4. We have also seen the record and are of the opinion that the finding given by the Forum is perfectly justified. As per investigation report and receipts annexed with it, it is amply clear that the salvage of the car was sold by the appellant/complainant to a scrap dealer. Neither in the order dated 28.3.2016 vide which original complaint was allowed, nor in the execution proceedings, it is proved on record that salvage of the car was ever handed over to the OP. Otherwise also, the amount received by the complainant is almost equal to the insured declared value of the vehicle mentioned in the insurance policy. In view of above, no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
6. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
7. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
15.05.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh] PRESIDENT [ DEV RAJ] MEMBER [ PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER