AMRISH CHOPRA vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

BRIEF facts giving rise to this complaint are that Mr. Amrish Chopra, R/o House No. 670, Sector-ISA, Faridabad, Haryana, complainant for short, got his Maruti Gypsy 1988 model comprehensively insured with New India Assurance Company, hereinafter referred to as the OP for the period 26.2.1992 to 25.2.1993 for a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/-. The Gypsy met with an accident on 14.6.1992 at Bilaspur in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The local office of the Insurance Company was informed. They appointed Mr. Baljit Singh to inspect the vehicle and prepare on the spot survey report. Accordingly a survey report dated 15.6.1992 was prepared and the insured was advised to bring the Gypsy for repairs to Delhi. The Gypsy was brought to Delhi by Himachal Pradesh Motor Transport Company, by charging Rs. 3,005/- as the complainant belonged to Faridabad, he got estimate of repairs prepared from authorised dealers of Maruti Udyog Limited namely M/s. Vipul Motors on 9.7.1992. The Divisional Office of the OP at Faridabad appointed Mr. Anil Jain, Surveyor on 17.7.1992. Mr. Anil Jain required copy of the Spot Survey report. Instead of cooperating with the insured, the office of the Insurance Company at New Delhi created difficulties in handing over the spot survey report. Ultimately the said report was personally brought by the insured from Delhi and handed over to Mr. Jain on 12.8.1992. Mr. Jain after inspection of the vehicle gave a signal to go ahead with the repairs on 24.8.1992. With effect from 9.9.1992, MUL (Maruti Udyog Ltd.) revised rates of various spare parts. Some parts were not available with the repairer. The complainant managed to obtain some spare parts from MUL and others from the open market at the revised rates and made them available to M/s. Vipul Motors and the Gypsy was ready after repairs on 13.11.1992. Mr. G.L. Dutta was appointed to reinspect the vehicle. His report is dated 12.11.1992. The Insurance Company considered it necessary to appoint Mr. V.K. Grover, Investigator to verify that spare parts concerned had been replaced after the revision of price by MUL. Another objection raised by the Insurance Company was that the insured should produce NOC from the Financer. The said NOC was produced by the complainant on 27.4.1993. The Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. The complainant got served Legal Notice dated 20.4.1993 claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Finally, claimed to the tune of Rs. 57,220.35 was approved and the same was conveyed to the complainant on 5.7.1993. The complainant was asked to deposit salvage, which he did on 27.9.1993. In the meanwhile the present complaint was instituted on 14.7.1993 claiming a sum of Rs. 5,24,615/- under various heads detailed in sub-paras (a) to (h) of para 26 of the complaint.

IN the written version, the INsurance Company stated that there was no deficiency in service and, accordingly, the complaint had no cause of action and the Commission had no jurisdiction. The INsurance Company also set out various dates on which steps were taken to process the claim and it was stated that even though the complainant was aware that the claim had been approved for Rs. 57,220.35 he got served legal notice claiming Rs. 1,20,000/-which necessitated further processing of the matter and a decision of the Competent Authority. It was also highlighted that the complainant himself took time in depositing the salvage. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the fact that the claim had been approved for Rs. 57,220/- and the complainant informed about it vide letter dated 10.9.1993 was brought to the notice of the Commission on 16.2.1994. The complainant''s Counsel vide his letter dated 5.10.1993 conveyed to the INsurance Company that the complainant was willing to accept the said payment without prejudice to his claim. The said amount was to be adjusted in the amount to be ultimately awarded by the Commission. By order dated 27.7.1994 the OP was directed to make the said payment within one month and it appears that the payment was received sometimes in August, 1994. The complainant filed his detailed affidavit by way of evidence and placed on records copy of the Insurance Company. Various letters written by him and the estimate and bill furnished to him by M/s. Vipul Motors as well as copy of the GR issued by Himachal Pradesh Motors Transport Company charging Rs. 3,005/- for bringing the accidented Gypsy from Bilaspur to Delhi. The OP filed affidavit of Mr. A.K. Mehta, Officer of the Insurance Company conversant with the facts of this case.

Both the parties have filed written arguments. Neither side appeared when the case came up for hearing. We have accordingly gone through the record as well as the written notes filed by both the parties and proceeded to dispose of the complaint.

THE first objection raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is that there was no deficiency in service and accordingly the complainant had no cause of action and this Commission had no jurisdiction. The complainant had set out precise details in details in which he had to run after various offices of the Insurance Company situated in Delhi and Faridabad. Instead of genuinely trying to expedite the settlement and various steps necessary to ensure necessary repairs being carried out at the earliest possible time, the Insurance Company was raising objection one after the other, not in one go but in driblets. They showed no sense of urgency and appeared to have been quite insensitive to the difficulties faced by the complainant for want of vehicle. This resulted in delay in starting the repairs and in ultimate approval of the claim. We have carefully considered the facts averred by the complainant and reply thereto given by the Insurance Company and we have no doubt that there has been unreasonable and avoidable delay in the processing of the case at various stages ultimately delaying the payment till August, 1994. We are quite clear in our mind that the facts disclose deficiency in service and we hold accordingly.

WE have carefully gone through the claim under various heads, A to H in para 26 of the complaint. Under Item A the amount claimed is Rs. 88,430.72 being the amount, which the complainant actually paid to the repairer M/s. Vipul Motors. The amount found due by the Surveyor including the revised price of spare parts is Rs. 57,220.35. If the complainant disputes the amount recommended by the Surveyor, it is open to him to raise a dispute and claim reference to arbitration. Under Item B cost of spare parts purchased from the open market amounting to Rs. 2,137.26 has been claimed. If this amount has not been taken into consideration by the Surveyor while assessing the loss in the final report, the same shall be allowed in addition to the claim given to the complainant. In case part of the claim has been taken into consideration, the same shall be accordingly adjusted, from the amount which the Insurance Company is liable to pay. Under Item C, the towing charges from Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh to Delhi of Rs. 3,005/- has been claimed. The complainant had the vehicle brought to Delhi with the necessary approval of the Insurance Company. The payment of the amount stands amply approved by production of the GR issued by the carrier. Mr. Jain at one stage had allowed Rs. 1,000/- as towing charges. It appears that by that time the GR had not been furnished to him. If that be so and only Rs. 1,000/- has been taken into consideration, on account of carriage charges, the balance namely Rs. 2005/- is further payable to the complainant.

UNDER Item D, the complainant has claimed Rs. 9,392/- on the ground that he was unable to use his vehicle for a period of two months and ten days @ Rs. 4,031/- per month. According to the complainant he paid that much amount to M/s. Sriram Fibre Finance Limited. No documentary evidence to this effect has been produced. Delay in the settlement of the claim amounting to deficiency in service is being kept in view while determining just and fair compensation to which the complainant is entitled. We do not think that the complainant is entitled to the amount claimed partly for the reason that at some of the stages delay in the final payment was attributable to the complainant himself as well.

UNDER sub-head ''E'' the complainant has claimed interest on delayed payment @ 24% amounting to Rs. 13,100/-. Interest which is considered just and fair in accordance with the recent decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. NKJ Corporation, III (1995) CPJ 8 (SC) namely 12% per annum is hereby allowed 011 the sum of Rs. 57,220.35 from two months after the receipt of the report of Mr. G.L. Dutta dated 19.10.1992 till actual date of payment namely August, 1992. Under Item F, G, and H, the complainant has claimed compensation on account of expenses incurred on making trips to the offices of the Insurance Company, compensation for deficiency in service and mental tension and physical exersion in following up this case.

In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in addition to the interest referred to above, we are of the view that a payment of lumpsum of Rs. 15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the legal notice dated 20th April, 1993, immediately before filing of the present complaint on 5.7.1993, the complainant had claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- which was inflated to Rs. 5,24,615/- in the complaint. At the same time, we find no merit in the objection raised by the OP that the claim properly so called was below the pecuniary jurisdictions of this Commission and the complaint should be dismissed leaving it open to the complainant to have his remedy before the District Forum. We find that the complainant has attempted to give basis for claiming the amount that he has done. It is entirely a different matter that on close scrutiny, we are not persuaded to allow those claims. The complaint is disposed of in these terms hereinabove mentioned. The amount shall be worked out and paid to the complainant within six weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties. Complaint disposed of.