State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahender Singh vs The New India Insurance Co. Ltd on 9 February, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 09.02.2009 Appeal No. FA-07/999 (Arising out of Order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer(North West), CSC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Case No.867/04) Sh. Mahender Singh Appellant S/o Sh. Ajit Singh, Through R/o 3258, Mahendra Park, Mr. Mohar Singh, Rani Bagh, New Delhi. Advocate Versus The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent Through Division Manager, Through A-2/3, Lusa Tower, Mr. Navdeep Singh, Azadpur, Advocate Delhi-110033. 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)
1. Vide impugned order dated 04.10.2007 the District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing that the appellant has failed to prove that he was in any way coerced or pressurized to accept the amount or that the discharge slip was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence etc. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Admittedly the vehicle of the appellant was insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- against cover risk of theft and damage by way of accident. The vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the policy in respect of which an FIR was lodged with the police and claim was filed with the respondent. The respondent appointed a surveyor who assessed the market value of the vehicle of Rs. 4,65,000/-. The appellant was paid the said amount. But since that he was to accept the said amount, he filed the instant complaint before the District Forum for payment of the balance insured amount.
3. Supreme Court has held in certain cases and particularly in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills 1986-99 CONSUMER 5077 (NS) : 1999 (2) CCC 37 (NS) that if in case the consumer satisfied the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief.
4. In identical cases we have taken a view that no insurance company can be allowed to reassess the market value by appointing a surveyor. Once the vehicle has been valued at the time of insurance policy against a specified insurance amount and by charging the proportionate premium, in such cases the market value has to be assessed by way of depreciated value by 5% in passenger vehicle and 10% in commercial vehicle and the voucher or statement obtained which is less than the market value on the premise of the aforesaid criteria has to be presumed to have been obtained through coercion as the insurance company is in commanding position whereas the insured is in demanding position and therefore they are unequally placed against each other.
5. In this case a sum insured was for Rs. 6,50,000/- which was a total cost of vehicle and the market value was assessed by the surveyor as Rs. 4,65,000/-. In such cases the insured has no other choice than to accept whatever settled by the insurance company as it has arm twisting clout and the insured has already suffered loss of the vehicle and to wait indefinitely to get the actual amount, he is entitled to. It is not understandable as to how the surveyor assessed the market value as Rs. 4,65,000/- when the insured amount was Rs. 6,50,000/-.
6. The insurance company cannot take advantage of reassessing the value after assessing it once and charging the corresponding premium otherwise the concept of premium of specified amount would lose its meaning and effect. It is the universal rule of interpretation that every beneficial statute or contract has to be interpreted in such a way so as to benefit the person for whom the legislation is intended. The contract of insurance which is for the benefit of the consumer should be interpreted and receive beneficial interpretation which means the interpretation which protects the interests of the consumer should be acted upon and no other interpretation.
7. Thus, in the instant case the coercion was writ large as the insured was given almost Rs. 2 lacs less than he was entitled to. Merely because a person signs a voucher or discharge slip by showing that he has accepted this amount as a settlement amount, does not debar him from claiming the rightful claim as such a claim not barred by resjudicata or by doctrine of estoppels. Under the Consumer Protection Act any service provider if found guilty for deficiency in service has in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act to pay an amount of compensation as to the actual loss or expected loss besides mental agony suffered by him which means emotional suffering, loss of business or reputation, physical discomfort or any such kind of loss suffered by it. This is what has been observed by the Supreme Court in case after case and recently in Gzaziabad Development Authority Vs Balbir Singh (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65. The observations of the Supreme Court are pithy and need to be reproduced. These are as under :-
The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order by directing the respondent to pay the balance amount less 5% of the depreciated value of the vehicle as the vehicle was stolen in the last days of the insurance policy.
9. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
12. Announced on 09th day of February, 2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc