FEEL FRESH vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN this complaint, it is alleged that the complainant''s insurance claim has not been settled by the National INsurance Company despite repeated efforts made by the complainant. Shortly stated facts are that the complainant had insured his vehicle bearing registration No. GA-01-T-0866 with the O.P. O.P issued a comprehensive policy for the period from 5.9.1991 to 6.9.1992. Policy issued on 5.9.1991 valued at Rs. 2,01,100.00 lakhs. Within 45 days of its purchase, the vehicle involved with an accident on 21.10.1991 in Gujarat State. Police had conducted panchanama of the scope of offence on 21.10.1991. Survey was carried out by O.P. in which the Surveyor recommended a total loss. Thereafter, O.P. vide letter dated 9.6.1992 informed the complainant asking his consent for the settlement of his claim on the net loss basis to enable the OP to expedite settlement of claim. The complainant alleged that despite aforesaid letter, his claim was not settled and, therefore, he served O.P. with a legal notice through his Advocate dated 21.9.1992. Ultimately, the complainant filed this complaint claiming Rs. 2,01,100.00 Lakhs alongwith the amount of compensation of Rs. 55,000.00 and other miscellaneous claims.

WE have heard Mr. A.S. Netravalkar, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the opposite party. OP filed written version and denied complainant''s claim. Written version of O.P. is merely evasive and irrelevant. During the course of arguments, Shri E. Afonso, learned Advocate for O.P. argued that delay in settlement of complainant''s claim is due to non-cooperation by the complainant in settlement of his claim. After going through the allegations in the complaint and documents on record, we find that this is a case of gross negligence on the part of Insurance Company in not settling complainant''s claim expeditiously. Letter dated 9.6.1992 sent by the O.P. to the complainant clearly indicate that they have sought advice of their higher office to settle the claim on net loss basis and not on total loss basis i.e. salvage may be retained and disposed off by the complainant. Even after lapse of considerable time, we fail to understand why the complainant''s claim was not settled even on total loss basis when the salvage could be collected by the Insurance Company, sunspot of settling the complainant''s claim honestly, O.P. tried to play on words and on frivolous conditions rejected the claim on the ground that complainant did not inform them about the salvage. WE are pained to observe that the complainant had obtained bank loan @ 17% per annum and the complainant has been served with a notice by the Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 57,525.00 by February, 1992. A copy of that letter from the Goa Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., addressed to the complainant dated 15.3.1993 is placed on record. We, further, find that there was total loss to the vehicle in question and the insurance cover do provide such a loss. We find that the O.P. was totally negligent in not settling complainant''s claim within a reasonable time. Thus we find that O.P. was deficient in its service in not settling complainant''s claim and protracted process of settlement for extraneous considerations. We, further, find that no genuine efforts were made by O.P. in settling complainant''s claim. The complainant has, therefore, obviously suffered loss in his business for want of funds. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER The complaint is allowed. O.P. is directed to settle complainant''s claim for Rs. 2,01,100.00 together with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.1.1992 till full payment. The complainant also be paid Rs. 1500.00 as cost of this complaint. The amount of compensation together with interest and costs be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which O.P. is liable for action under Sections 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint allowed with costs.