ACHHAR KUMAR GARG vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPNAY LTD.

DEFICIENCY in service on the part of the Assurance Company, is a subject matter of the present complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'').

FACTUAL matrix first. Undisputedly, the complainant who is owner of the truck, Tata diesel, Model 1210 SE/42-B having registration No. PB-13/2003, Engine No. 692 DO 1.9.32804 and Chasis No. 364 073 889132 has insured his vehicle with . the Opposite Party for Rs. 3,40,000/-. The period of the Insurance Policy, was from 20.6.1990 to 19.6.1991. During the subsistance of the policy, the truck was set ablazed on 7.3.1991. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Party and thereon Surveyor was appointed and the matter was investigated and the report was submitted. The payment of Rs. 2,10,000/- was paid vide cheque No. QUX-874265 dated 23.10.1992 drawn on Punjab National Bank to the complainant by the Opposite Party by way of settlement of his claim. The complainant has in the present complaint claimed the full insured amount i.e Rs. 3,40,000/- alongwith interest. In addition to this, he has asked for the compensation. It has been alleged that the complainant was forced and constrained to take the cheque in settlement of the claim as he was denied the issuance of the cheque without giving such undertaking and hence the settlement of payment in lieu thereof was not reached willingly and voluntarily by the complainant with the respondent-company.

The Opposite Party, in the written statement has stated that the complainant has already accepted the claim towards full and final settlement and he has given the consent letter dated 25.9.1992, accepting the amount towards full and final settlement of the claim and as such no further claim is tenable. The said consent letter dated 25.9.1992 executed by the complainant has been attached alongwith the written statement. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has accepted the cheque for Rs. 2,10,000/- under coercion and the said payment was also made after a long delay of ninteen & a half months despite the repeated requests and personal visit and efforts of the complainant. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has argued that the complainant has given the consent letter dated 25.9.1992 and the same reads as under:- "I, Achhar Kumar son of Shri Narata Ram resident of Barnala, the owner of Veh. PB-13-2003 T.D.V., Truck Model 1984 hereby accept the claim on cash loss basis for Rs. 2,10,00/- as full and final settlement of my claim. I will have no other claim against the Insurance Company in respect of the above vehicle which was burnt by unidentified persons on 7.3.1991. I accept the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- as full and final settlement of this claim."

In pursuance of the consent letter, the cheque dated 23.10.1992 for Rs. 2,10,000/- was handed over to the complainant and the complainant has withdrawn the said amount and has been accepted by him as full and final settlement of the claim and hence, he is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. He has relied upon Kilaru Jogendra Narayana Prasad v. Oriental Life Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1992) CPJ 116 (NC), Nafe Singh Badal of District Jind v. The National Insurance Co. Limted, I (1992) CPJ 320, B.S. Sundervadadival Mudaliar & Sons v. Chairman-cunt-M.D., United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras, 1991 CPR 606, Ashwani Aggarwal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ambala, II (1991) CPJ 597.

FROM a bare perusal of the consent letter dated 25.9.1992, it is made out that the complainant has executed the consent letter in English. He seems to be an educated person. He is a resident of a Developed Municipal Town, Barnala, District Sangrur. He has not chosen to lead any evidence before us. Surprisingly, neither he has verified the complaint nor has submitted any affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint. In view of the facts pleaded and the circumstances brought on the record, we find it unable to believe that the consent letter dated 25.9.1992 was not executed by the complainant voluntarily and he was compelled to do so by the Opposite Party. There is another aspect of the matter. It is not disputed that the insured truck was set ablazed on 7.3.1992 and the payment of the settlement amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- was made on 23.10.1992. There is undue delay in the payment of the insured amount to which the claimant is found to be entitled. We find that the complainant is atleast entitled to interest at the delayed payment. Shri Pardeep Bedi, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has emphasised that in view of the judgments cited by him (supra), the complainant cannot be awarded the interest over and above the settled amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. We have carefully gone through the judgments cited above. We find our inability to accept the contention of Shri Pardeep Bedi. None of the judgments cited above deals with the entitlement of interest at the delayed payment. Moreso, Mr. Bedi has failed to refer to any of the factum which contributed in getting the payment delayed when he was arguing the matter. In our view, the instant case is squarely covered in favour of the complainant for the grant of interest by the judgment of the National Commission as reported in Col. Bhim Singh v. Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. CPC 1992 365.

WE are satisfied that there has been inordinate and unjustified delay in the settlement of the claim of the insured and he was deprived of the insured amount for more than 18 months for no fault of his. It is needless to mention here that the whole infrastructure, organisation and functional apparatus of the Insurance Policy revolves on the premium paid by the insured and the whole edifice of Insurance Company is because of the insured and not inspite of him and the whole fabric of the Insurance Policy is wooven around him.

THE respondent-Company has chosen to move at snail''s pace. It was expected from him to run at the fire brigade speed to disburse the amount to the claimant. For the reasons recorded above, we partially allow the complaint and find the Opposite Party deficient in service for the payment of the settlement amount and thereby order the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 18% pa. on Rs. 2,10,000/- to the complainantinsured from four weeks after lodging his complaint with the Opposite Party till the date of payment i.e. 23.10.1992. We have been incapacitated to mention the date of the lodging of the claim because the learned Counsel for the complainant, inspite of our repeated queries has failed to pinpoint the date, upon which the claim of the claimant was lodged and he has only replied that the complaint was lodged immediately after the accident. We burden the Opposite Party with costs which is assessed to be Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint partly allowed.