State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Dr.Sanjay Tiwari on 21 June, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/2016/108
Instituted on : 04.04.2016
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No.2, Pandri Road,
Raipur (C.G.)
(Insurer / Opposite Party) ... Appellant
Vs.
Dr. Sanjay Tiwari, Aged 55 years,
S/o Late Dr. Shri S.K. Tiwari,
R/o : Tiwari Nursing Home, Civil Lines,
Raipur (C.G.)
(Insured/Complainant). ... Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Tiwari, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 21/06/2016 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.531/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
(a) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.3,67,475/- after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- which is amount of policy clause from the // 2 // IDV of the vehicle Rs.3,68,475/-, to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.012.2012 till date of payment.
(b) The O.P. will also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
(c) The O.P. will also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards advocate fees and cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant are that the complainant is a Doctor by profession. The complainant is owner of Chevaralet Optra bearing registration No.C.G.04-C.F-8200 and having Engine No.B-010185 and Chassis No. H-306611. The said vehicle is insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited under Policy No.190501/31/11/01/00002451 which was effective for the period from 18.05.2011 to 17.05.2012. On 18.04.2012 at 6 A.M. the said vehicle met with an accident due to negligence of driver of other vehicle and the same was completely damaged. The complainant gave intimation regarding the incident to O.P. within prescribed period and thereafter the O.P. deputed their authorised Surveyor, who conducted survey and assessed the loss. The complainant obtained estimate in respect of the damaged vehicle and the valuation of repairing of the vehicle was made to the tune of Rs.12,89,079/-. The // 3 // authorised agent of the O.P. Insurance Company obtained the signature of the complainant in the claim form in respect of claim of the damaged vehicle and submitted the claim form within prescribed period before the O.P. Insurance Company, thereafter the complainant was informed that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle will be given to the complainant, but till the date, the O.P. Insurance Company did not give any amount and also did not make any correspondence regarding acceptance of his claim. The authorised agent of the O.P. Insurance Company informed the complainant that delay in making payment of the claim amount is due to cost of salvage and its sale. The valuation of the salvage was not done with the consent of the complainant. The Surveyor was required to assess the cost of salvage with the consent of the complainant. Thus the O.P. Insurance Company was required to reassess the value of salvage and also obtained consent of the complainant and thereafter the entire total loss was required to be paid to the complainant. The above damaged vehicle (salvage) is in possession of the O.P. Insurance Company in which the complainant has no right and the O.P. Insurance Company is having right on it because in the condition of total loss the O.P. Insurance Company is free to sale the vehicle to any other party by providing entire claim amount to the insured. The complainant is a doctor by profession and he has to visit to various cities of the Chhattisgarh State and other State. The complainant is // 4 // facing inconvenience and his goodwill was also adversely effected. The delay is also caused to purchase another vehicle because the O.P. Insurance Company is not paying the claim amount, hence the complainant has to hire the vehicle from market in which a sum of Rs.1,200/- is spent per day. The complainant is also not able to visit due to which he suffered loss. The O.P. Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The above act of the O.P. Insurance Company comes in the category of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant sent notice to the O.P. on 10.10.2012 through advocate, but the O.P. did not pay the amount to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. Insurance Company filed its written statement and averred that Chevrolet Optera Car bearing registration No.C.G.04- C.F.8200 was insured as private vehicle under insurance policy No.190501/31/11/01/00002451 for the period from 18.05.2011 to 17.05.2012. The Insured Declared Value was Rs.3,68,475/-. The vehicle in question was insured under terms and conditions and limitation. The vehicle in question did not met with an accident on 18.04.2012 at 6.00 A.M. near Parri Nala, Rajnandgaon and did not completely damaged. The Surveyor did not assess the loss to the vehicle in // 5 // question to the tune of Rs.12,89,079/-. The Insurance Company did not assured to give Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question to the complainant. The Insurance Company or its authorised agent did not inform the complainant that delay in making payment of the claim amount is due to cost of salvage and its sale. After getting the intimation regarding the incident, the Insurance Company got inspected the vehicle and thereafter Shri Anil B. Verma conducted final survey in respect of loss to the vehicle in question. Shri Anil B. Verma, is a licenced Surveyor from I.R.D.A.In his Survey Report dated 23.08.2012, Shri Anil B. Verma, assessed the loss on the basis of Net of Salvage Loss to the tune of Rs.2,92,475/- whereas he assessed the cost of salvage to the tune of Rs.75,000/-, whereas the O.P. deputed another Surveyor Shri Anjan Sahu for assessment of the salvage, who assessed the value of the salvage to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently Shri Anil B. Verma, Surveyor mentioned in his Survey Report that as the vehicle in question is run by petrol, therefore, there is possibility that the value of its salvage will come to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The Surveyor again assessed the loss on the basis of Net of Salvage Loss basis and assessed the liability of the Insurance Company to the tune of Rs.3,17,475/- under the terms and conditions of the policy and submitted his opinion for settlement of the claim of the complainant. On being verified the documents relating to the vehicle in question, the O.P. found the same correct and vide letter dated 20.11.2012 intimated // 6 // the complainant regarding assessment of the amount by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs.3,17,475/- and also requested the complainant to inform regarding his consent at the earliest and to sign the Settlement Intimation Voucher towards his acceptance, so that the Insurance Company can pay the amount in respect of his claim, but the complainant did not give his consent to the O.P. and he is demanding entire I.D.V. of the vehicle in question, which is improper. The O.P. decided to pay the claim amount as per assessment made by the Surveyor, which is according to provisions of Section 64 U.M. of the Insurance Act, therefore, the complainant cannot make allegation of deficiency in service against the O.P. The complainant did not spend a sum of Rs.1,200/- per day in respect of his profession as doctor and the O.P. did not liable to pay the said amount. The .O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the O.P. Insurance Company is ready to settle the claim of the complainant as per assessment made by the Surveyor, therefore, no case of deficiency in service is made out against the O.P. Hence, for want of the cause of action, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. The O.P. can pay the amount assessed by the Surveyor on Net of Salvage Basis to the complainant when the complainant gave his consent regarding salvage of the vehicle and provided the voucher to the Insurance Company after making his signature in the voucher, // 7 // but the complainant did not comply with both the requirement, for which he himself is responsible. The complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. The complainant filed documents. Document No.1 is Motor Claim Form, document No.2 is Private Car Package Policy Schedule, document No.3 is First Information Report (Under Section 154 Cr. P.C.), document No.4 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-CF-8200, document No.5 is driving licence of Dharam Dev Bagh, document No.6 is letter dated 7.05.2012 sent by CBO, Raipur Motor Dealer Branch, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) to The Divisional Manager, Division Office, Raipur for appoint of Surveyor for Motor Own Damage claim, document No.7 is notice dated 19.04.2012 sent by the United India Insurance Company Limited complainant, document No.8 is receipt issued by United India Insurance Company Limited, document No.9 is letter dated 20.04.2011 sent by the complainant to The Officer Incharge, Police Station, Rajnandgaon.
5. The O.P. has also filed documents. Documents are Private Car Package Policy, Survey Report of Shri Anil B. Verma dated 23.08.2012, Inspection Report of Shri Anjan Sahoo, dated 20.11.2012, letter dated 20.11.2012 sent by Shri Anil B. Verma to the Insurance Company, letter dated 20.11.2012 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, settlement intimation voucher, // 8 //
6. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by the parties has partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P) to pay amounts to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para one of this order.
7. Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the vehicle in question on total loss basis. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.3,68,475/- and Surveyor deducted wreck value to the tune of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as policy clause and assessed loss to tune of Rs.2,92,475/-. Thereafter another Surveyor Shri Anjan Sahu, inspected the salvage of the vehicle in question and he assessed the value of salvage to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, which was also accepted by the Surveyor Shri Anil B. Verma and thereafter the total loss was assessed by him to the tune of Rs.3,17,475/-. Shri Anil B. Verma, Surveyor sent letter to the appellant (O.P.) in which the value of salvage was assessed to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and total loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,17,475/-, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.3,17,475/- and accordingly the appellant (O.P.) sent Discharge Voucher to the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) had refused to accept the discharge voucher. The salvage is still with the respondent // 9 // (complainant). As the salvage is with the respondent (complainant), therefore, it is essential that salvage value be adjusted from the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle and the net payable amount comes to Rs.3,17,475/-, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,17,475/- from the appellant (O.P.). He placed reliance on Shriram General Insurance Company Limited V. Pinku Bhai, I (2016) CPJ 169 (NC).
8. Shri Sudeep Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum and submitted that the vehicle in question suffered total loss and the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.3,68,475/-. The learned District Forum, awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,475/- to the respondent (complainant) which is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal of the appellant (O.P.) is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. It is admitted fact that the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.- 04-CF-8200 was insured with the appellant (O.P.) and the insurance policy was effective for the period from 18.05.2011 to 17.05.2012. The accident took place on 18.04.2012 during subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted fact the appellant (O.P.) deputed Shri Anil // 10 // B.Verma as Surveyor and Loss Assessor. Shri Anil B. Verma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, in his Survey Report has specifically mentioned that the vehicle suffered total loss and he assessed the loss on total loss basis.
11. Now we shall examine whether the respondent (complainant) is entitled to get Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question ?
12. In Shriram General Insurance Company Limited V. Pinku Bhai (Supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Since this is a case in which insurance claim has been settled on total loss basis, salvage, is supposed to be returned to Insurance Company or adjustment of salvage has to be granted to Insurance Company."
13. In the instant case the salvage is with the respondent (complainant) and the Surveyor assessed the value of salvage to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards Policy Clause , which are required to be adjusted from the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle and thereafter a sum of Rs.3,17,475/- is payable to the respondent (complainant). Therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,17,475/-.
14. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.01.2016, passed by the District Forum, is liable to be modified accordingly. Hence the appeal // 11 // of the appellant (O.P.) is partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant (O.P.) will pay a sum of Rs.3,17,475/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five) instead of Rs.3,67,475/- to the respondent (complainant). The remaining part of the impugned order shall remain unaltered. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
21 /06/2016 21 /06/2016