NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs LAKHVEER SINGH

By this Revision Petition, National Insurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company") calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 31.08.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 60/2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 05.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Case No. 165/2013. By the said order, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaint, filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not accepting the claim preferred by him for indemnification of the loss suffered by him, on account of the accident of the insured vehicle, namely, Nissan Micra Diesel XV Premium (R), Storm White S Grey, had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant the full amount of IDV of 5,29,915/-, after deducting the depreciation and the amount under excess clause, along with litigation costs, quantified at 10,000/-.

The short question arising for consideration in this Revision Petition is as to whether the Fora below were justified in issuing the afore-noted directions, despite the fact that the Complainant, vide settlement dated 02.04.2013, had agreed to accept a sum of 3,00,000/- as full and final settlement of his claim. It is relevant to mention at this juncture itself that out of the afore-noted amounts, a sum of 3,00,000/- has already been remitted by the Insurance Company to the account of the Complainant on 21.09.2013.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, we are of the opinion that answer to the afore-stated question has to be in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Complainant and against the Insurance Company.

Apart from the fact that there was delay of more than five months in the remission of the allegedly settled amount, which per se amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in settling the claim, preferred by the Complainant, the lapse on its part gets compounded further because of violation of Regulation-9 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders'' Interests) Regulations, 2002. The said Regulation provides, in unequivocal terms, that upon acceptance of an offer of settlement by the Insured, the payment of the amount due shall be made within seven days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the Insured. As noted above, payment of even the settled amount was made after a lapse of over five months. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the delay in remittance of the said amount was on account of the fact that immediately after accepting the said offer, the Complainant was reluctant to accept the said offer. Since admittedly the afore-noted amount of 3,00,000/- was remitted by the Insurance Company to the account of the Complainant after a lapse of five months, we see no reason as to why the same could not be remitted within the stipulated period of seven days under Regulation-9 of the 2002 Regulations. Besides, we also find that the balance amount now due to the Complainant in terms of the impugned order works out to a paltry sum of 1,50,000/-, including the interest at the rate of 9%, which was payable as a default stipulation, as the Insurance Company had failed to comply with its directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

The balance amount due to the Complainant in terms of the impugned order shall be remitted by the Insurance Company to him within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.