TEEM METALS PVT. LTD. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/s. Teem Metals Pvt. Ltd., complainant for short, obtained a comprehensive insurance policy for its truck No. M.R. No. 26A/7574 Telco manufactured in the year 1992 for the period 26.5.1994 to 25.5.1995 for Rs. 4,00,000/-. The insurance policy included risk against theft, amongst others. The truck was stolen on 20.3.1995 from Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi-110005 and FIR was lodged at Police Station, Anand Parbat. The Insurance Company was informed. The Insurance Company appointed M/s. K.K. Arora & Company as Sureveyor. The complainant extended all cooperation and furnished the information and documents required by the Surveyor. The Surveyor delayed submitting the report and the complainant followed up writing various such as letters dated 25.8.1995 and 12.9.1995. Ultimately the said Surveyor obtained consent of the complainant for settlement of the claim on payment of Rs. 3,02,545/-. The case of the complainant is that its consent was given under duress as the complainant badily needed money to carry on business. Instead of settling the claim the Insurance Company appointed one Mr. L.D. Arora as Investigator. Again the required information and documents were furnished to him. Thereafter the Insurance Company referred the matter to one of its officers Mr. K.P. Singh. He, too, failed to settle the claim and hence the complaint. The complainant claimed indemnification to the tune of Rs. 4.00.000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of loss of business Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of mental agony and tension.

NOTICE under Regd. cover was sent to the National Insurance Company. The same was not received back un-delivered. Service was presumed and considered adequate. Time was given to the opposite party to file its written version. The opposite party failed to enter appearance and filed its reply. The complainant has filed affidavit of Mr. Anil Gupta in support of the complaint in which all material averments of the complainant have been stated on oath. There is no rebutal. It is settled law that failure of the Insurance Company to settle the claim within a reasonable time of the occurrence of loss constitutes deficiency in service. It is further settled law that the insured is entitled to the market value of the vehicle on the date of loss. Though the insured value of the truck was Rs. 4,00,000/-, it appears to us that the Surveyor M/s. K.K. Arora & Company, concluded that the market value of truck on the date of its theft was Rs. 3,02,545/-, It was that amount which was agreed to be accepted by the complainant. It is not understood why the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim or repudiate the same. We accordingly, allow the complaint ex parte and direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,02,545/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from two months after the date of receipt of Surveyor report of M/s. K.K. Arora & Company till date of payment alongwith Rs. 5.000/- as costs within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The period and rate of interest has been allowed in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corporation, III (1996) CPJ 8 (SC). The complaint is disposed of in these terms. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties. Appeal allowed with costs. ______________