HARYANA STORES (P) LIMITED vs National Insurance Company Limited

THE complainant, M/s. Haryana Stores (P) Limited, DLG Commercial Complex, SCO No. 83-84, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh has filed this complaint through its Director Sh. D.L. Gupta against the opposite party - National Insurance Company Limited under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act) for grant of compensation on account of rendering of negligent and deficient services by the opposite party, National Insurance Company Limited. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party - Insurance Company, who filed the written statement and the evidence in support of their pleadings.

THE complainant is the owner of Opel Astra which was purchased in the year 1997 registered with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh vide Registration No. CH-01-3100 (Annexure C-2). THE said car was insured against all risks covering the risk upto Rs. 5.5 lakhs valid w.e.f. 26.7.1999 to 25.7.2000 vide cover note bearing No. 700101 from the opposite party - Insurance Company. THE premium of Rs. 17,415/- as assessed by the opposite party was also paid (Annexure C-3). THE said car met with an accident near Lalru on 30.12.1999 at around 7.45 a.m. while going to Delhi and the car was totally damaged to the extent of beyond repairs. THE said accident was also reported to the police in Police Station Lalru vide DDR No. 35 dated 30.12.1999 (Annexure C-4). THE factum of the accident of the car was immediately reported to the opposite party - Insurance Company. A request was made to pay the damages at an early date as the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant by raising loan from Canara Bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh. THE opposite party - Insurance Company on receipt of the information appointed. Sh. Gopal Krishan as Surveyor to assess the loss caused to the insured car in the said accident. THE Surveyor due to lack of interest delayed the survey report despite the furnishing of every possible information to him. THE estimate of loss was also worked out and handed over to the opposite party - Insurance Company for its perusal but the Company allegedly did not take any action on the survey report. On 4.2.2000, a reminder was sent to the opposite party - Insurance Company by the complainant for an early settlement of the claim. It has been averred in the para 12 of the complaint that after having paid the requisite premium for the insured car the opposite party - Insurance Company is under its contractual obligation to indemnify the insured for the loss caused to the insured vehicle. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - Insurance Company. The complainant has claimed the market value of the car on total loss basis. The complainant has also prayed for the award of interest w.e.f. the date of the accident till payment of the total sum @ 15.32% per annum as the same was got financed from Bank and paying interest along with interest tax to the Bank at a high rate. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been claimed as compensation for mental harassment.

In reply, the opposite party - Insurance Company has raised preliminary objections saying that the present complaint is not maintainable because the same has been filed at the premature stage. The claim of the complainant has never been repudiated by the opposite party - Insurance Company. The accident took place on 30.12.1999 and thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint dated 25.2.2000. The complainant, it has been alleged, has not given sufficient time to the opposite party - Insurance Company to settle his claim.

IN the second preliminary objection, the opposite party - INsurance Company has averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On 30.12.1999 accident took place and on getting the intimation from the complainant, Wing Commander, R.L. Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to conduct the spot survey was detailed. Spot Surveyor submitted his report on 20.1.2000 (Annexure R-1). On 4.1.2000, Sh. Gopal Krishan, Surveyor was asked to assess the loss suffered by the complainant. On 4.2.2000, the opposite party - INsurance Company asked the Surveyor to submit his report at the earliest and again sent a reminder on 1.3.2000 to the Surveyor for submission of the report at the earliest. On 7.3.2000, Surveyor submitted his report (Annexure R-2). After going through this survey report, opposite party - INsurance Company found that as per the spot survey report the driver of the vehicle was Ranvir Singh whereas as the per claim form and final report, the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was Praveen Kumar. To remove this discrepancy, the INsurance Company wrote a letter dated 30.3.2000 to the complainant to furnish the copy of the FIR in original along with the driving licence for verification (Annexure R-3). The INsurance Company again wrote letters dated 7.4.2000, 24.8.2000 and 30.5.2000 to the complainant to furnish certain documents and sought certain clarifications (Annexures R-4 to R-6). Clarifications from the Spot Surveyor were also sought, who replied vide his memo dated 8.8.2000. The claim of the complainant is under consideration, in these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the INsurance Company, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the facts regarding the car Opel Astra having been insured has not been denied. It has been averred in the reply that the delay was caused because the complainant failed to furnish the information demanded by the Insurance Company vide Annexures R-3, R-4 and R-5.

IN para 15 of the reply, it has been averred that the INsurance Company is liable to pay only when there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has been alleged that the car was already an accidented car prior to this accident. The market value of his car at the time of loss assessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 3,25,000/- on total loss basis subject of submission of salvage by the complainant. The complainant and the opposite party led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the opposite party - Insurance Company, Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate and perused the evidence adduced by both the parties. We now proceed to examine the respective pleas and evidence led on record. The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the car was insured for the sum of Rs. 5.5 lakhs and the premium was also paid in time. Within a period of 5 months the car met with an accident. It is not understood as to how the value of the car got depreciated to Rs. 3,25,000/- (loss assessed by the Surveyor on total loss basis) within a period of 5 months. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate alleged that there is a serious deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company and prayed that the complainant be compensated for a sum of Rs. 5.5 lakhs for which amount the car was insured.

MR. Suman Jain, Advocate for the Insurance Company contended that the car which was insured for Rs. 5.5 lakhs is an accidented car and it has been re-purchased by the complainant, hence, the market value of this car was assessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 3,25,000/-. The opposite party - Insurance Company accepted the report of Surveyor Sh. Gopal Krishan (Annexure R-5) and offered to settle the claim at Rs. 3,25,000/-.

ON perusal of the affidavit filed by Sh. Gopal Krishan, Surveyor, we have observed that para 3 of the affidavit states, "the said car was already accidental one and market value of such car is reported to be Rs. 3,25,000/-". In the survey report also, it has been stated that "the market value of 1997, Opel Astra is reported to be Rs. 3,25,000/-". It appears to be highly improbable that a car which had insured for the sum of Rs. 5.5 lakhs, the market value of the same car has come down to Rs. 3,25,000/- within a gap of 5 months which does not seem to be a genuine assessment. The assessment of the Surveyor is without any evidence and not been authenticated. The pleading of the Surveyor that the car was an accidental one has also not been stated in the written statement. It is a fact that the car was insured for the sum of Rs. 5.5 lakhs and met with an accident within 5 months of its insurance. The matter that it is an accidental car is not required to be considered at this stage because the Insurance Company while insuring the car has accepted the cost of the car as Rs. 5.5 lakhs.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not properly settling the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5.5 lakhs on total loss basis within two months from the date of receipt of this order subject to the return of the salvage of the car by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant is also allowed costs of the complaint, which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/-. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Complaint allowed with costs.