N.R. GUPTA vs SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter for brevity referred to as District Forum-II], dated 11.12.2003 in Complaint Case No. 1093 of 2001, N.R. Gupta v. Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company & Anr.

THE complainant avers that he got his Car No. CH-03-2916 comprehensively insured from O.P. No. 1 for Rs. 1,89,000/- on payment of premium. THE policy was valid from 27.10.1999 to 26.10.2000. This car met with an accident on 14.6.2000. THE O.Ps. were informed of the accident. Sh. Kuldeep Singh was deputed by O.P. Insurance Company as the Surveyor and he assessed the damage to the car but the O.Ps. failed to settle the claim. By letter dated 12.12.2000 at C-4 O.P. No. 1 informed the complainant that the Surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs. 1,60,000/- on total loss basis and he sought consent of the complainant. However, the complainant by his letter dated 11.1.2001, Annexure C-5, wrote to O.P. No. 1 to allow the claim equal to the Insured Estimated Value of the car i.e., Rs. 1,89,000/- plus 18% per annum interest for the delayed period or allow him to get the car repaired from an authorized Maruti Dealer. On the other hand O.P. No. 1 vide his letter dated 8.1.2001, Annexure C-6, informed the complainant that the Competent Authority has approved the claim as Net on Salvage Basis for Rs. 80,000/-. He was also told that the salvage could be retained and subsequently be disposed by him. However, subsequently vide their letter dated 11.1.2001 O.P. No. 2 informed the complainant that Rs. 1,60,000/- offered by the O.Ps. on total loss basis for a final settlement was fully justified keeping in view the downward trend of the market value of the cars and sought his consent and asked him to complete the requisite formalities. In response to this letter the complainant gave his consent for repair of the car as he needed the same because he became handicapped after the accident. He also submitted the estimate of the repair of the car given by Mohali Motors Pvt. Ltd., authorized service station of Maruti for an amount of Rs. 1,41,028/- (C-9). In the meantime the complainant moved an application before the OMBUDSMAN of the Insurance who directed the O.P. to get the car repaired from Authorised Maruti Service Centre vide his order dated 26.4.2001 (Annexure C-10). THE complainant sent the car to the repairer but he was told that in the claim the O.P. had not allowed the replacement of body shell and he was informed that the O.P. intended to replace only the front body parts, which were damaged. During the complainant''s personal meetings with O.P., the O.P. backed out from their promise to settle the claim for Rs. 1,60,000/- on total loss basis and also refused to change the body shell of the car. THE complainant was compelled to give consent for amount of Rs. 80,000/- as net on salvage basis. Fed up with the situation the complainant asked the O.P. to pay him a sum of Rs. 95,000/- as net on salvage basis but as per the complainant the letter dated 21.5.2001 seeking the same was written under protest and compelling circumstances (C-12). THE complainant avers that with mala fide intention the O.P. changed the amount in this letter from Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 87,000/-. Ultimately the O.P. settled the claim for Rs. 87,000/- against the wishes of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and hence complaint seeking following relief : "(i) A sum of Rs. 1,41,028/- be paid on repair basis or get the car repaired with including complete body shell as recommended by the Surveyor Sh. Kuldip Singh and the expert of Mohali Motors, Maruti Authorised Service Station along with interest from 6/2000; (ii) to allow a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as expenses on the taxi as the complainant remained without car because of inaction of the O.P. in not settling the claim for such a long time; (iii) a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused by the O.P. for not settling the claim; (iv) costs of the litigation be also allowed to the complainant."

The version of the O.P. is that the Surveyor had assessed the loss as Rs. 1,60,000/- on total loss basis subject to transfer of R.C. in the name of the O.P. Insurance Company after cancellation of Spurdari of the vehicle as the car had been impounded by the police after the accident. However, the complainant showed his inability to get the R.C. transferred because the car been financed by the Canara Bank. Therefore, other modes of settlement were explored and the O.P. Insurance Company approved the claim as net on salvage basis for Rs. 80,000/-. It is denied by the O.P. that it ever offered the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,47,028/-. Regarding repairs to the car, it is pleaded that the body shell did not require replacement and the O.P. Insurance Company agreed before the OMBUDSMAN for repairs of the vehicle and not for replacement of body shell. It is also pleaded that the complainant himself agreed for the settlement of the claim as net on salvage basis for a sum of Rs. 87,000/- and accordingly gave his consent letter dated 21.5.2001. It is denied that the figure of Rs. 95,000/- in the letter dated 21.5.2001 was changed to Rs. 87,000/- by the O.P. In view of the claim having been settled for Rs. 87,000/- the O.P. pleaded that the complaint has no merit.

In their analysis of the case learned District Forum-II came to the conclusion that the amount in the letter at C-12 has been altered by the O.P. from Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 87,000/-, yet at the same time it also concluded that the complainant had written this letter voluntarily and had agreed to accept Rs. 95,000/- as insurance claim from the O.P. as net on salvage basis and having agreed to accept this amount there should be no valid ground for the complainant to make a shift from it. Consequently, the learned District Forum directed the O.P. to pay balance of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 21.5.2001 till payment. The O.Ps. were also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the complainant has filed this appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, the record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II and notices were sent to the respondents. Mr. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate represented the O.Ps. Mr. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate submitted that Surveyor report (Annexure R-2) indicates both the values to be paid of the claim on repair basis as well as on total loss basis. He also submitted that at Page 2 of the report under the column ''Replacement of Parts'' the Surveyor had recommended at Sr. No. 2, the replacement of body shell whereas the O.P. subsequently did not agree to the replacement of full body shell when the vehicle was sent for repairs. By doing so the O.P. Insurance Company did not comply with the order of the Insurance OMBUDSMAN dated 26.4.2001. He further submitted that the complainant agreed to accept the payment of Rs. 95,000/- as net on salvage basis under pressure because he needed the car for his treatment as he had become handicapped after the accident. He also submitted that the O.P. Insurance Company delayed the finalisation of claim for over one year.

IN response, Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate submitted that the complainant had finally agreed to accept Rs. 87,000/- as full and final payment as net on salvage basis and he should honour this commitment. He further added that Annexure C-13 indicates this. He also submitted that the complainant had voluntarily executed the discharge voucher towards full and final payment and hence there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. INsurance Company. Regarding the value of loss, Mr. B.K. Bashamboo, Advocate referred to Para 7 of the impugned order where the market value of the car has been indicated as Rs. 1,60,000/- and the accepted salvage value has been indicated as Rs. 70,000/-, thus, indicating as net on salvage value of the case to be Rs. 90,000/-. He finally submitted that with the payment of Rs. 87,000/- to the complainant the O.P. INsurance Company has fully discharged its obligations towards the complainant and there is no deficiency in service. Having perused the evidence on record and having listened to the learned Counsels for both sides, we find that the claim has been settled on net salvage basis based on Annexure C-12, which is a letter dated 21.5.2001 written by the complainant himself. It is also clear after perusing all these documents that the amount mentioned therein as Rs. 87,000/- has been altered. This lends credence to the averments made by the complainant that he had agreed to settle the claim at Rs. 95,000/- and not at Rs. 87,000/-. We agree with the observation of learned District Forum in this regard that this figure has been altered by the O.P. Insurance Company as the change in the figure is to the benefit of the O.P. However, the claim disbursement voucher i.e., Annexure R-4 dated 15.6.2001 indicates that Rs. 87,000/- stands accepted as full and final payment for the claim by Mr. N.R. Gupta. This claim disbursement voucher does not indicate that the same has been signed under protest. The claim voucher having been signed in June, 2001 and the complainant has filed the complaint in December, 2001. Though in the complaint at Para-9 it has been averred by the complainant that he wrote the letter dated 21.5.2001 under protest and compelling circumstances, no details of the same have been elaborated. It is also clear that the payment of Rs. 87,000/- as net on salvage basis, when added with the salvage value of Rs. 70,000/- as assessed by the Surveyor makes the total claim equivalent to Rs. 1,57,000/- which is almost equal to the assessed market value of car i.e., Rs. 1,60,000/-. If the claim as net on salvage basis is taken as Rs. 95,000/- then the total money received by the complainant would be Rs. 1,65,000/-. Thus under the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the complainant agreed to the claim of Rs. 95,000/- as net on salvage basis under any pressure or compulsion. In view of the forgoing, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant agreed to the settlement of the claim at Rs. 95,000/- as on net salvage basis and he is entitled to the payment of the same amount. Thus, we find that the order of the learned District Forum directing the O.P. to pay an amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 21.5.2001 till payment is justified, fair and legal. Further, we find no merit in the averments of the complainant/appellant that he agreed to the payment of this amount of Rs. 95,000/- under protest and compulsion. Consequently, we find that the impugned order is just, fair and legal and requires no interference. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed lacking in merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.