ANAND MANOHAR PARCHURE vs National Insurance Co.Ltd

THE complainant filed this consumer dispute alleging the deficiency in the service of National Insurance Company Ltd. as regards the delay in Settlement of insurance claim and for under-valuing the claim.

SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the complainant is a practicing Advocate at Nagpur and had purchased on 17.12.87 a New Maruti Van for Rs. 81,358.82 ps. Its original registered number was MIK-6969 and later on it was changed to MZV-8989 when it was registered at Nagpur. The Complainant had insured the said motor vehicle with the opposite party under an insurance policy on 11.12.90 for the period between 17.12.90 to 16.12.91. The value for purposes of insurance has been shown at Rs. 80,000/- in the insurance policy. The said motor vehicle was stolen on 24.1.91 from the High Court premises, Nagpur. The Complainant reported the matter to the Police immediately and Crime No. 45/91 was registered u/Sec. 379 of the I.P.C. The complainant also notified the theft of his motor vehicle in newspapers. On 25.3.91 the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party for settlement of his claim. According to complainant despite his repeated attempts to settle the claim earlier, the opposite party delayed the settlement of his claim and finally settled, it on 16.8.91 for Rs. 70,000/- only. In his complaint, the complainant claimed the full value of the motor vehicle, interest, damages and resultant loss. Thus, Rs. 1,63,600/- are claimed on account of the deficiency in the service of the opposite party. The claim of complainant was opposed by the opposite party by filing written version on 20.9.91. The opposite party denied the claim of complainant on both the grounds of delay and under valuation. Hence, there arose a consumer dispute in this complaint.

The complaint was fixed for final hearing on 19.11.91 at Nagpur Camp. Although the notice of hearing was served, the opposite party remained absent and, therefore, we proceeded ex-parte against it. The complainant had sent his agent and sought an adjournment and, therefore, the complaint was fixed for filing the affidavit by the complainant on 20.11.91. At the time of final hearing on 20.11.91, the complainant was heard in person. Although the opposite party was proceeded ex-parte on the previous date of hearing, we heard the arguments of Shri Somalwar learned Advocate for opposite party. The complainant in support of his allegations and claim filed an affidavit dated 12.11.91 besides the necessary documents of insurance policy and letters of correspondence. The opposite party did not file any affidavit. After filing of this complaint, it seems that the opposite party settled the claim of complainant on 16.8.91 for Rs. 70,000/-. The complainant accepted that amount of Rs. 70,000/-on 10.8.91 under protest. The complainant filed an application for amendment before this Commission on 10.9.91 and stated that his claim for the balance amount survives and be decided by this Commission.

IN view of the denial of the complainant''s claim by the opposite party, the following points arise for our consideration. (1) Whether there is deficiency in the service of the opposite party? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim the compensation due to the negligence in the service of the opposite party? The complainant has given the details as regards the efforts he made for the delayed settlement of his claim. On 25.3.91, the complainant lodged the claim. At that time, he was told by opposite party No. 1 to wait for three months. After about 1 months period on 7.5.91, the complainant was asked to file certain documents which he supplied on 13.5.91 to the Surveyor. It is seen that the surveyor, one Shri Copade appointed by the opposite party made frivolous enquiries from the complainant. The motor vehicle in question is a Maruti Van, yet the Surveyor questioned as to why it was registered as ''light motor vehicle car''. The surveyor exhibited his total ignorance in this behalf, even though the Maruti Car of the complainant was shown as ''Van'' in the Registration. It remains to be a light motor vehicle for purposes of registration. Yet the complainant was asked to clarify this situation by the Surveyor. We, therefore, find that although it was a case of total loss by way of theft, there was nothing to be investigated by the Surveyor except to calculate the loss. But surprisingly, the Surveyor took his own time without any ostensible reasons. It seems that the opposite party does not have any control over the Surveyor and allowed him to delay the settlement of the claim of the complainant. It is also found that the opposite party delayed the settlement of claim on the untenable ground of obtaining the final report from the police u/Sec. 173 of the Cr.P. Code. We are surprised to learn as to how the complainant can be asked to submit the final report at the behest of the INsurance Company. The complainant cannot be said to have any control over the Police Department to procure such a report to suit the whims of the INsurance Company. The complainant being in need to a car even took the trouble of approaching the Police Authorities to obtain necessary certificate. Still the claim was not settled and, therefore, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice to the opposite party on 9.7.91. IN our view, forcing the complainant to obtain unwarranted documents which he is not legally obliged to obtain and under that pretext to delay the settlement of the complainant''s claim amounted to harassment and, therefore this is a deficiency in the service of the opposite party. 5. We further find that although the insurance policy was issued to the complainant for Rs. 80,000/- for no reason his claim has been reduced by Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand). It seems that the opposite party without applying its mind to the valuation of the insured motor vehicle mechanically relied upon the valuation arrived at by the Surveyor. IN fact, in our view, there was no necessity to approach the Surveyor since there was a total loss due to the theft of the motor vehicle. The delay in settlement of claim is also caused in this case due to unnecessary reference to the valuer and the delay caused by the Surveyor to submit the report without any reason or rhyme. Thus, we find that the complainant''s claim has been wrongly under valued. We, therefore, find that both the issues mentioned above are to be answered in the affirmative for the reasons mentioned above. 7. The complainant has claimed in his complaint full value of his vehicle at Rs. 80,000/- shown in the insurance policy. After deducting the payment of Rs. 70,000 on 16.8.91, the complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 10,000/- to get his full value of the insured motor vehicle. We have also observed that there was delay in settlement of the claim and, therefore, the complainant lost interest on the total value of his claimed Policy for Rs. 80,000/-. The complainant has given the calculation of interest in a note dated 20.11.91. The calculation shows Rs. 6,000/- on account of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs. 80,000/- for five months. Similarly, the interest of Rs. 10,000/- at the same rate amounting to Rs. 450/- is also calculated. The complainant has also claimed the damages and compensation for humiliation at Rs. 30,000/- and for the loss of price rise at Rs. 44,000/-. The complainant did suffer loss due to the delay in settlement of the claim and therefore, his claim for loss of interest is justified. However, in absence of convincing evidence on record, we find that the complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and loss of price rise of Rs. 44,000/-. However, we find that the complainant has proved his allegations for the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards balance amount of insurance and Rs. 6450/- for the loss of interest. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER 8. The opposite party, the National INsurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards the balance amount of value of the insured vehicle together with Rs. 6000/- as interest at the rate of 18% p.a. for Rs. 80,000/- for five months as compensation. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as costs. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,000/- and the cost of Rs. 500/- be paid to the complainant within a period of thirty days form the date of receipt of this order failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the 18% p.a. till realisation. Appeal allowed.