DEVINDER KUMAR JAIN vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased a mini truck Tata 407 Model 1991 in February 1991, after obtaining loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. The loan carried interest @22% p.a. He got the vehicle insured comprehensively for a sum of Rs. 2,18,000/- vide policy dated 25.2.91 for a period of one year. The vehicle was stolen on the night intervening 30.11.91 and 1.12.91 from Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, where it had been parked during night. A complaint has lodged with the Police Station Model Town on 1.12.91.

THE complainant informed the respondent about theft on the same date i.e. 1.12.91. THEreafter he completed the formalities and supplied the necessary documents to them. However, the claim was not settled by the respondent. On 13.7.92, the complainant, it is pleaded, was influenced by the respondent to enter into a settlement and accept Rs. 1,85,000/-. Shri Chaman Lal, Sr.Divisional Manager of the respondent promised to issue the cheque for the said amount within a week''s time. However, inspite of promises and assurances on behalf of the company no cheque has been issued in pursuance of the settlement till 31.8.92. He consequently served a legal demand notice on the respondent on 1.9.92 through his Counsel. It is alleged that the complainant is entitled to recover his full insurance amount of Rs. 2,18,000/- alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as expenses and rupees one lac as damages on account of mental torture and harassment.

The complaint has been contested by the respondent. On 19.5.93 it was stated by Mr. Tyagi, the learned Counsel for the respondent that in case the complainant submits R.C. Book alongwith no objection certificate, the respondent would make the payment of Rs. 1,83,500/- to the complainant. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that he had no objection in accepting the payment under protest. The complainant, in pursuance of the undertaking by the Counsel for the respondent gave R.C. Book alongwith no objection certificate to the company and he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,83,500/-. Thus the claim of the claimant for the balance amount survives.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that in view of the compromise between the parties the complainant is estopped from claiming the balance amount. On the other hand the argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant is that when the complainant''s claim was not settled by the respondent for a long time and the bank was pressing him for returning the loan, he thought that it would be better to compromise with the respondent but even after the compromise the decretal amount was not paid by the respondent. In the circumstances he is not estopped from claiming the balance amount. We have duly considered the arguments. But we find substance in the contention of the complainant''s Counsel. It was the duty of the respondent to have settled the claim of the complainant expeditiously, preferably within two to three months. When it was not done, he had to enter into a compromise by force of circumstances. After the compromise it was the duty of the respondent to have made the payment immediately. However, it was not done by them. The amount has been paid by them after more than six months of the filing of the complaint. It has been seen that the Insurance Companies, in order to pressurise the insured to enter into a compromise, do not make payment of the insured amounts on one pretext or the other. The same method was adopted by the respondent in this case. In the circumstances, in our view, the complainant is not estopped from claiming the balance amount from the respondent.

IN the abovesaid view we are supported by the observations of the National Commission in Col. Bhim Singh v. Regional Manager, National INs. Co. Ltd. and Another, I (1992) CPJ 205 (NC). It was observed in that case that the payment of insurance amounts, which are not in dispuie, are often delayed with a view to coerce the insured into giving a receipt in full and final discharge of the claims of the insured amount. It was further held that in such circumstances the insured has no choice but to give discharge as desired by the INsurance Company. IN that case the INsurance Company took 30 months time in settling the claim and the complainant felt satisfied that unless he gave the discharge in full and final settlement he would have to wait for the insured amount indefinitely. Consequently he was awarded interest, travelling expenses and damages for mental strain and harassment. The next question that arises for determination is, to what amount the claimant is entitled from the respondent on account of the price of the vehicle. The vehicle was purchased in February'' 91 and it was stolen on the night intervening 30.11.91 and 1.12.91. Thus the complainant could use the same for less than one year. According to the insurance policy the percentage of depreciation for the vehicle used for a period between six months to one year is, 5% of the price of the same. The price of the vehicle paid by the complainant was Rs. 2,17,311/-, 5% of this amount comes to Rs. 10,866/-. After deducting the depreciation the balance amount comes to Rs. 2,06,445/-. The respondent has already paid an amount of Rs. 1,83,500/-. The balance amount to be paid is Rs. 22,945/-. The payment of the total amount has been delayed by the respondent. The complainant''s claim should have been settled within a period of three months from the date of theft, by the respondent. Thus he should have got the money by 1.3.92 However, it was not done by the company. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 2,06,445/- from 1.3.92 to 24.5.93. In our view the complainant should be given interest (5)18% p.a. by the respondent. The amount of interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.3.92 to 24.5.93 comes to Rs. 45,831.00. Thereafter he is entitled to interest on the balance amount namely Rs. 22,945/- at the same rate from 25.5.93 till 30.7.93, the date of the order. The amount of interest on this count comes to Rs. 745/-. The complainant has been put to great harassment as the respondent did not make the payment inspite of entering into a compromise with him. Consequently we further grant him damages amounting to Rs. 5,000/- for mental harassment and agony. Thus in all the complainant is entitled to Rs.74,521/- or say Rs. 74,500/-.

THE truck was pledged with the Oriental Bank of Commerce. THE complainant has filed a certificate that they have received the loan amount from the complainant and have no objection in case the amount is paid to him.

THE respondent filed certain documents on 27.5.93, ie. after the due date with an application that the same be taken into consideration. It was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500/-as costs. THE respondent did not pay the costs to the complainant. Consequently we have not taken into consideration the said documents. 12.For the afore said reasons we partly accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.74,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.8.93 till the date of payment within three months, failing which action shall be taken against them u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs.2,000/-. THE complainant should transfer the vehicle in the name of the Insurance Company and pay the amount of tax due to the Registering Authority. Complaint partly accepted with costs. _______________