State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Virendra S.Yadav vs Oriental Insu.Co. on 15 October, 2018
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 04.03.2014 passed in C.C.No.361/2011 by District Forum, Gwalior) VEERENDRA SINGH YADAV, S/O SHRI BAIJNATH SINGH, R/O PRAGATI VIHAR COLONY, GOLA KA MANDIR, GWALIOR (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus GENERAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTALL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE-PADMA BHAWAN, JAYENDRA GUNJ, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1317 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 04.03.2014 passed in C.C.No.361/2011 by District Forum, Gwalior) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ABOVE HOTEL AMAR PALACE, PHOOL BAGH CHOURAHA, GWALIOR (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus VEERENDRA SINGH YADAV, S/O SHRI BAIJNATH SINGH, R/O PRAGATI VIHAR COLONY, GOLA KA MANDIR, GWALIOR (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant Veerendra Singh Yadav.
Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
O R D E R (Passed On 15.10. 2018) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
Both the above mentioned appeals (Appeal No. 477/2014 filed by the complainant Virendra Singh Yadav) and (Appeal No. 1317/2014 filed by the opposite party the Oriental Insurance Company Limited) are directed against the order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in C.C.No.361/2011, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been allowed.-2-
Since both the appeals arose out of one common order, therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party for not reimbursing the insurance claim of his vehicle minibus, bearing registration no.MP-07 F-0969, which was insured with the opposite party insurance company for a period from 22.01.2004 to 21.01.2005.
3. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded Rs.1,99,500/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle (Rs.2 lakh) after compulsory deductions of Rs.500/- from the same, along with simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint, till its realization. Compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation was also awarded to the complainant.
4. Both parties independently filed these appeals. The complainant filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The opposite party filed appeal against the impugned order, stating that the District Forum passed the order without considering the facts of the case.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the intimation regarding theft was to be given within 48 hours of its occurrence, whereas in this case the opposite party insurance company was informed after four days, of theft of vehicle. The complainant was required to submit both original keys of the vehicle to the opposite party, along with NOC from the financer. Both original keys were not handed over to the opposite party and therefore the complainant's claim seems suspicious. Due to non-cooperation from the complainant, the claim file was closed as 'No Claim'. There is no fitness certificate of the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle was stolen, just before, the expiry of the insurance cover period (theft occurred reportedly on 20.01.2005). He argued that the opposite party did not decide the claim on its merits. No Final Report of the theft case was submitted by the complainant with the opposite party. The complainant was ready to accept 75% of -3- the IDV and award of entire IDV of the vehicle is not sustainable. He further argued that the vehicle was stolen after more than 11 months of its purchase and therefore as per policy conditions the percentage of depreciation is deducted from the IDV of the vehicle while deciding the claim. The District Forum has further erred in awarding entire IDV of the vehicle in question.
7. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the opposite party- insurance company did not decide the complainant's theft claim and it is pending since long period of time. Therefore, the impugned order, though passed in complainant's favour needs to be amended. He argued that the preparation of Final Report is not in our control. The opposite party closed the claim file on 07.03.2007 without informing the complainant. As soon as the complainant received Final Report on 27.01.2011, he submitted the same with the opposite party on the very next day i.e. on 28.01.2011. The District Forum has erred in awarding the interest from the date of filing of complaint whereas the interest should have been awarded from the date of claim filing. The Final Report was prepared in the Court and the complainant was not responsible for the delay caused. The claim was left undecided, due to non-submission of Final Report is entirely opposite party's fault. The complainant deserves the claim awarded by the District Forum, with 9% p.a. rate of interest and that too from two months after 20.01.2005 (date of vehicle theft). Learned counsel referred to Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002 in this regard.
8. As we carefully peruse the evidence on record, we observe that there is no investigation report available on record. In letter dated 21.03.2006, the opposite party had demanded the original keys of the vehicle, along with final report. The complainant had written letters to the opposite party stating that one original key has been handed over by him and the other one is misplaced (regarding which reportedly an affidavit has been filed by him).
-4-9. It is noteworthy that Final Report of the case was prepared on 27.01.2011. The complainant gave the copy of the same to the opposite party, along with a letter requesting settlement of claim. There is however, no correspondence from the opposite party, further in this regard. The opposite party, even after receiving the documents did not decide the claim of the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Learned counsel for complainant has given reference of IRDA regulations, stating that the opposite party is liable to pay claim amount with higher rate of interest, since there is delay in settlement of claim on their part. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that there is delay in submission of Final Report as well. The vehicle was stolen on 20.01.2005. The opposite party had demanded final report along with original keys of the vehicle from the complainant. However, the final report was prepared on 27.01.2011 only. Sub-regulation 6 under Regulation 9 of the above referred circular of IRDA Regulations 2002 reads as:
Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub-regulation (5) by the insured, the payment of the amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the cases of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it.
10. Clearly, there was no acceptance of offer in this case, because of non-submission of final report. The opposite party rightly demanded the final report to settle the insurance claim of the stolen vehicle. In this case, it is noteworthy that the Final Report was prepared after six years. The complainant therefore does not deserve the benefit of the aforesaid regulation cited by him.
11. Learned counsel for opposite party drew our attention to the aspect of depreciation. He argued that the vehicle was stolen after more than 11 months of its purchase, therefore, the IDV of the vehicle is to be calculated after considering its age-wise depreciation. In this regard, we peruse the 'Commercial Vehicles Package Policy' Annexed as R-13 in the record of the Forum. There is specific mention of 15% -5- depreciation in fixing the IDV of the vehicle in Total Loss/Constructive Total Loss Claims (TL/CTL), when the age of the vehicle is more than six months but not exceeding one year. Therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant deserves IDV of the vehicle after considering the aspects of depreciation applicable in his case.
12. Thus, in the wake of the above discussion, we modify the impugned order. The opposite party shall pay the IDV of the vehicle after deducting depreciation applicable in the instant matter, as per policy schedule. Compulsory deductibles shall also be deducted from the IDV. The claim shall be payable with an interest @ 10% p.a. as against the 8% p.a. awarded by the District Forum, from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Rest of the order of the Forum is affirmed.
13. In the result, both appeals are disposed of. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs of these appeals. This order be retained in First Appeal No.477/2014 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.1317/2014.
(S. D. AGARWAL) (DR. MRS. MONIKA MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER