State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Surender Mohan Katwal. vs Sh. Yogesh Lohia. & Ors. on 6 January, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA, CAMP AT UNA.
First Appeal No.: 212/2015
Date of Presentation:02.11.2015
Date of Decision: 06.01.2016
...............................................................................
Surender Mohan Katwal,
Son of late Shri Prithvi Singh,
Resident of Vikas Nagar,
Una, District Una,
Himachal Pradesh.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Shri Yogesh Lohia,
Managing Director and CEO,
IFFCO TOKIO,
General Insurance Company Limited,
IFFCO Sadan, C-1,
District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110 017.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
Through Customer Service Centre,
North IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 34,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019.
3. Shimla Automobile Limited,
Authorised Dealer,
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited,
Mubarkpur Road, Amb,
District Una,
Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondents
...................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Keshav Chandel, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Amit Sahani, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 Mr.D.S. Rana, Advocate
................................................ ......................................................
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Surinder Mohan Katwal Versus Yogesh Lohia & Anr.
(F.A. No.212/2015)
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31.08.2015, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, Insurance Company i.e. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company & respondent No.3 has though been allowed, he is not satisfied with the quantum of insurance money that has been ordered to be paid and also the non award of compensation.
2. Admitted facts are that the appellant owned a car, bearing registration No.HP-21-0001, which was insured with the respondent/insurance company, in the sum of Rs.5,58,505/-. During the currency of insurance agreement, car caught fire and was completely destroyed. Claim was lodged with the respondents. A Surveyor was deputed by the respondents, who assessed the loss at Rs.5,42,505/-. Respondent/insurance company 2 Surinder Mohan Katwal Versus Yogesh Lohia & Anr.
(F.A. No.212/2015) offered to pay Rs.5,42,505/- to the appellant, through writing Annexure C-20, which is dated 30.04.2013, but demanded a consent letter on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-, discharge voucher, original policy for cancellation and receipt issued by RTO for R.C cancellation.
3. Appellant responded to the aforesaid letter, Annexure C-20, vide reply Annexure C-23, and demanded a sum of Rs.5,58,505/- plus damages for delay in payment and also conveyed that registration certificate in respect of the damaged vehicle could not be got cancelled as he had got the number of the vehicle transferred to another vehicle belonging to him. Also, he objected to the reduction of claim amount by Rs.15,000/-,on account of salvage value. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the insurance company to pay the sum insured and also claimed damages and litigation expenses.
3
Surinder Mohan Katwal Versus Yogesh Lohia & Anr.
(F.A. No.212/2015)
4. Complaint was contested by the insurance company and it was pleaded that the vehicle was insured in the sum of Rs.5,58,505/- and not Rs.6,01,000/-, as alleged in the complaint and that after deducting a sum of Rs.15,000/-, on account of salvage value and Rs.1000/-on account of excess clause, a sum of Rs.5,42,505/- had been offered to the appellant, vide letter, Annexure C-20, but the appellant did not accept the aforesaid offer by raising inconsequential issues in his letter, Annexure C-23.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order has held that appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,42,505/-only and has directed that respondents should pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of payment of aforesaid amount of money.
6. Appellant is aggrieved and has therefore, preferred the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
4
Surinder Mohan Katwal Versus Yogesh Lohia & Anr.
(F.A. No.212/2015)
7. Insurance policy is available on record, as Annexure C-8. As per this policy, vehicle was insured in the sum of Rs.5,58,505/- and not Rs.6,01,000/-, as alleged by the appellant. The fact shows that the appellant demanded more amount of money, than the sum insured, to which he was not entitled, as per contract of insurance. The total amount of money, he could have claimed was Rs.5,58,505/- less an amount of Rs.500/- on account of excess clause. Also, he could not have claimed money equivalent to the salvage value, unless he offered to return the salvage to the insurer. Learned District Forum, has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled to any amount of money, in excess of the sum insured, less the salvage value and the amount deductable on account of average clause. As regards claim for damages for the alleged delay in settling the claim, suffice it to say that claim was settled and the money to which the appellant was entitled was offered to him in less than hundred days of the occurrence. So, it cannot be 5 Surinder Mohan Katwal Versus Yogesh Lohia & Anr.
(F.A. No.212/2015) said that there was any delay, much less inordinate delay in settling the claim.
8. Learned counsel representing the appellant, submits that appellant does not want to retain the salvage and is willing to return it to the respondent/insurance company. In view of this submission, we dispose of the appeal with the direction that in case appellant returns to the respondent/insurance company, salvage of vehicle, within thirty days, to be counted from today, respondent/insurance company shall pay to him an additional amount of Rs.15,000/-. Appeal stands disposed of.
9. 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 (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member January 06, 2016.
DKM} 6