State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj on 30 March, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 211 / 2009
The New India Assurance Company Limited
having its Divisional Office at 8/6-7, Astley Hall, Dehradun
through Senior Divisional Manager
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Sharma
R/o House No. D-356, Subhash Nagar, Roorkee
Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 30/03/2010
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This is insurance company's appeal against the order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 369 of 2007 and directing the insurance company to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 79,085.99/- together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,500/- as costs of litigation.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Sh. Vipin Kumar Bhardwaj is the registered owner of Tata Indica car bearing registration No. UA-08-7442. The vehicle was comprehensively insured for sum of Rs. 3,28,269/- with The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 15.05.2007 to 14.05.2008. During the currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 11.06.2007 and got damaged. The complainant got the 2 vehicle repaired at the workshop of the authorised dealer M/s Oberai Motors, Dehradun and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,10,045.99/-. The complainant lodged a claim with the insurance company for indemnification of the loss, but the insurance company, after a lot of persuasion, paid an amount of Rs. 30,960/- only. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was allowed by the District Forum per order impugned in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim of the complainant was settled on the basis of the surveyor's report and the complainant has received the amount of Rs. 30,960/- towards the full and final settlement of his claim. Nowhere in the discharge voucher, the complainant has said that the amount was being received under protest. The learned counsel also submitted that the complainant did not deposit the salvage inspite of several reminders and ultimately the appellant settled the claim after deducting the value of the salvage. The learned counsel, in support of his arguments, pressed into service the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Sidra Rama Thombare Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; III (2009) CPJ 158 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that if the complainant has executed the discharge voucher voluntarily without any protest note and no objections have been raised for 10 long months, then the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
35. The learned counsel for the complainant - respondent, in reply to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the discharge voucher is a pre-signed receipt, which is obtained by the insurance company during the process of settlement of the claims. Merely because the complainant has signed it without a protest note, it should not be inferred that the complainant had received the amount towards full and final settlement of the claim. Learned counsel further submitted that the discharge voucher has been dispatched on 18.10.2007 by the appellant, while on the same date, i.e., 18.10.2007, the complainant has issued a notice to the appellant for the reimbursement of the expenses of Rs. 1,10,045.99/- incurred by him towards the repairs of the vehicle. Thus, it will be very wrong to conclude that the payment was received towards the complainant's full satisfaction.
6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are not sustainable because the discharge voucher has not been dated by the complainant while putting his signature on the revenue stamp. Further, a notice through his counsel was also sent by the complainant on the same date, on which the discharge voucher was dispatched by the appellant. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant can not be applied directly to this case because in the reported case, the complainant had not raised any objection for 10 long months against the full and final settlement of his claim, while in the instant case, the complainant has filed the consumer complaint on 20.11.2007, after receiving the cheque for sum of Rs. 30,960/- on 24.10.2007.
7. We also observed that the surveyor deputed by the appellant has assessed the loss at Rs. 87,640.74/- and has assessed the value of 4 the salvage at Rs. 7,000/-. The net loss, without salvage, has been assessed at Rs. 80,640.74/-. The surveyors' report is at Paper Nos. 20 to 23. The learned counsel for the appellant could not explain as to how the claim was settled at Rs. 30,960/- after deducting the value of the salvage. Therefore, we are not satisfied so far as appellant's action with regard to the settlement of the claim is concerned. The appellant has certainly made deficiency in service by not making a logical settlement of the complainant's claim and on this point, we agree with the view of the District Forum. But the District Forum has totally ignored the surveyor's report. In our opinion, the District Forum has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 79,085.99/- (Rs. 1,10,045.99 - Rs. 30,960.00) and has failed to observe that the complainant has not pointed out any error in the surveyor's assessment. The surveyor has taken into account all the expenses incurred in the repair of the vehicle and has allowed the claim as may be permissible after deducting depreciation on plastic parts. The learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any error in the assessment of loss made by the surveyor. Therefore, in our opinion, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 80,640.74/- only as assessed by the surveyor after deducting the value of salvage. Further, the rate of interest @9% p.a. and Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum, are also on the higher side. The complainant is entitled to just and reasonable interest of 7% p.a. and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation respectively. To the above extent, the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.
8. In view of above, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly.
9. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 20.10.2009 of the District Forum is modified and the appellant - insurance company 5 is directed to pay sum of Rs. 49,680.74/- (Rs. 80,640.74 - Rs. 30,960.00) to the complainant - respondent together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. Costs of the appeal made easy.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) K