INDERJIT KAUR vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THIS complaint has been filed under Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] read with Sections 12 and 14 of the C.P. Act claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 9 lacs along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of theft of truck TATA-L.P.T. No. PB-12-B-1326.

THE complaint has been filed against the New India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Divisional Office, SCF No. 9, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh and the New India Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Officer/Manager, Sector 17, U.T., Chandigarh. THE relevant facts for disposal of this complaint may be mentioned, briefly, as under : The complainant - Smt. Inderjit Kaur is the owner of the aforesaid truck. The relevant particulars regarding the said truck are mentioned in para 1 of the complaint, which may be mentioned as under : (i) Registration No. : PB-12-B-1326 (ii) Chassis No. : 360324-BUQ-703690 (iii) Engine No. : 697D-23AUQ 709618 (iv) Model : 1995 (v) Make : TATA-L.P.T.

The photocopy of the registration certificate has been placed on record as Annexure C-1.

The complainant got this truck aforesaid insured with the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs vide Insurance Policy [Copy Annexure C-2]. It was alleged that the said truck was stolen in the year 1999 and FIR was lodged regarding the occurrence of theft. Thereafter, the complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the incident of theft of the truck which was insured with the opposite parties and submitted photocopies of the documents as well as the original. Copy of the FIR was also filed with the opposite parties. Claim for payment of the sum insured i.e. Rs. 4 lacs was filed with the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not settle the claim and instead sent a letter to the complainant seeking some clarification regarding the movement of the truck between the period from 1.6.1999 to 13.6.1999. The complainant duly submitted the reply to the said letter, copies of which has been annexed as Annexures C-7 and C-8. Since the claim of the claimant was not settled, the complainant filed this complaint seeking payment of a sum of Rs. 9 lacs on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This amount of Rs. 9 lacs comprises of the sum assured i.e. Rs. 4 lacs, Rs. 2 lacs on account of mental agony, litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 3 lacs claimed on account of deficiency in service, loss of business, loss of money, due to non-working and carrying on goods by the truck of the complainant.

NOTICE was issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filed joint written statement denying the averment of deficiency in service on their part. It was contended that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act. The complainant was guilty of mis-representation and concealment of material fact from this Commission. The factum of insurance of the truck in question was admitted. The sum of Rs. 4 lacs as the sum assured was also admitted. The receipt of intimation of the theft of the truck from the complainant was not disputed. It was alleged that the opposite party No. 1 deputed an independent Surveyor and Investigator namely, Shri Sudesh Kumar of Panchkula for investigating the matter. The Surveyor/Investigator Shri Sudesh Kumar submitted his report on 31.8.1999. Thereafter another independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor namely, Shri G.S. Riar of Mohali was deputed by opposite party No. 1 to assess the loss suffered by the complainant on account of the alleged theft of the truck. Shri G.S. Riar submitted his report and assessed the value of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs. 3.35 lacs and informed the opposite party No. 1 regarding the valuation of assessment of the vehicle vide letter dated 25.9.1999. The opposite party No. 2 sought some clarification from the opposite party No. 1 which in turn put this queries to the complainant as well as to the financier of the vehicle namely, M/s. R.B. Hire Purchase and Finance Company. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 forwarded the same to the opposite party No. 2 for their information and necessary approval of the claim. The opposite party No. 2 asked opposite party No. 1 to obtain an affidavit from the complainant as well as from the financier to the effect that the vehicle in question was stolen and was not confiscated by the financier. The complainant did not comply with it despite a reminder dated 31.8.2000 sent under registered A.D. Post to the complainant. The financier, however, submitted the required affidavit on 4.10.2000. During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite parties settled the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- and offered a cheque for the said amount to the complainant. The photostat copy of the cheque has been placed on record. This cheque is drawn on Union Bank of India, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh dated 23.2.2001 in favour of Smt. Inderjit Kaur and for a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/-. The learned Counsel for the complainant accepted the said cheque on behalf of the complainant under protest and subject to the rights as claimed in the complaint case. This was mentioned in Zimini order dated 26.2.2001. Consequently, the complainant received part payment of the claim in the shape of cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/-.

THE complaint case has proceeded for the remaining claim made by the complainant for the balance amount of Rs. 5,65,000/-. Out of this amount of Rs. 5,65,000/-, Rs. 65,000/- is the balance amount of the sum assured i.e. Rs. 4 lacs. Rs. 3 lacs have been claimed on account of loss of business due to the theft of the truck. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs has been claimed for deficiency in service. In our considered view, the complainant cannot legitimately claim a sum of Rs. 3 lacs for loss of business in not being able to transport the goods due to the theft of the truck and the same cannot be attributed to the opposite parties. THE opposite parties are not in any way concerned nor they have been shown to be concerned with the commission of theft of the truck. THE liability of the opposite parties is to be determined under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. If the truck in question was stolen, the opposite parties i.e. the Insurance Company would become liable to pay the amount of insurance i.e. a sum of Rs. 4 lacs subject to the report of the Surveyor/Loss Assessor and further subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. If the claim had been settled by the opposite parties prior to the filing of the complaint case, the complainant would not have become entitled to claim any amount from the opposite parties on account of either deficiency in service or on account of not being able to conduct business due to the truck being stolen. THE complainant is thus not entitled to claim the sum of Rs. 3 lacs on account of loss of business. Now coming to the claim of the complainant regarding the payment of the sum assured i.e. Rs. 4 lacs and for claiming a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation on account of delayed settlement of the claim, it may be pointed out that the opposite parties - New India Insurance Company Limited had appointed Surveyor to assess the loss. The report of the Surveyor has been annexed with the reply as Annexure R-2 which is dated 25.9.1999. It is addressed to the Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Sector 27, Chandigarh on the subject "Valuation of Truck No. PB-12D/1326, A/c : Smt. Inderjit Kaur, Model 1995 TATA LPT, Date of Loss : 13/14th June, 1999, IEV. Rs. 4.0 lacs, Policy No. 31/1825, dated 15.7.1998 to 14.7.1999". It is in the form of the letter which reads as under : "Dear Sir, As per the instructions received from your office regarding the valuation of truck which was stolen in June, 1999. The truck seems to be in good condition and without any accident as it earned 35% ''No Claim Bonus''. When enquired from the local market regarding the value of this Model, it was found that the value will be Rs. 3.35 lacs. This report is issued without prejudice and subject to the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- ENCL : 1. Survey Fee Bill. (G.S. Riar)" It is relevant to point out that the report of the Surveyor is based on his enquiry made from the market. The report also shows the condition of the truck being good as it claimed 35% ''No Claim Bonus''. The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the depreciation in the value of the truck was already taken into consideration at the time of the insurance and no further depreciation should be allowed on the truck. Apart from it, the Surveyor did not file his own affidavit in support of his averment regarding making enquiry from the market regarding the price of the truck. The truck itself was not available due to being stolen and keeping into consideration the good condition of the truck already noted by the Surveyor, there was no reasonable basis for the Surveyor to assess the value of the truck less than the amount for which the truck was insured on 15.7.1998. We are thus of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the entire amount of sum assured i.e. a sum of Rs. 4 lacs under the policy.

SO far as the amount of compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company is concerned, the consistent stand taken by the opposite parties is that despite seeking information from the complainant regarding the truck not having been confiscated by the financier and despite issuing reminder, the complainant did not file her affidavit and as a result of which the claim case of the complainant could not be finalised earlier. The complainant filed her affidavit on 17.4.2001 and annexed therewith Annexure A-10, a photocopy of her affidavit in which she mentioned the requisite information regarding the truck and deposed in this regard in paras 2, 3 and 4 as under : "2. That the above mentioned truck was stolen on 13/14.6.1999 (night hours) from Mohali, Punjab. 3. That the deponent is not in possession of above mentioned truck since the date of stolen from Mohali as mentioned above. 4. That the above mentioned truck was not been confiscated by the financier in any way."

THE date which appears on this affidavit is of June, 2000. It is not disputed that the financier had filed the requisite affidavit with the Insurance Policy, a photocopy of which is on record as Annexure R-8. It was deposed by Shri Narinder Pal Singh, partner of R.B. Hire Purchase and Finance Co., SCF 118, Phase 3-B-2, Mohali, inter alia, as under : "(1) That Truck No. PB-12-B-1326, duly registered in the name of Inderjeet Kaur w/o Baldev Singh is financed by us. (2) That Truck No. PB-12-B-1326 was stolen on the intervening night of date 13.6.1999 and 14.6.1999 from Mohali. (3) That the said vehicle is not in our possession and is actually stolen. (4) That the theft of the vehicle is legitimate for which of FIR No. 92 dated 14.6.2000 was registered at Police Station, Phase 8, Mohali."

Since the relevant information was to be furnished by the financier and since the complainant also filed evidence to show that she had filed her affidavit in this regard, there was no valid justification on the part of the opposite parties to delay the settlement of the claim. In this view of the matter, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and according to our considered view, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- would be adequate compensation in this regard. The complainant is thus entitled to get a total amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- from the opposite parties out of which she has already been paid Rs. 3,35,000/-.

Resultantly, the complaint is allowed to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest on the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- @ 10% per annum till its realization. The complaint is decided accordingly with no orders as to costs. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Complaint allowed.