UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs Naresh Bedi

SH . Naresh Bedi/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, ''District Forum'') in year 2005 on the grounds, that he is owner of vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No. DL -4CP -5706. This vehicle was insured with United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd./Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/ - for the period from 07.08.2004 to 06.08.2005. It is stated, that this vehicle was stolen on 23.08.2004. Police case was registered and insurance company was informed through fax on 24.08.2004. Thereafter, claim was lodged with the insurance company. It is the case of complainant, that he gave all the required information including untrace report to the insurance company. Instead of settling the claim, insurance company harassed him unnecessarily. Thereafter, complaint was filed praying that insurance company be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/ - being the insurance claim on account of theft of the vehicle and Rs. 1,10,000/ - by way of damages suffered on account of non -payment of insurance claim, along with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.08.2004 till payment besides costs.

THE complaint was resisted by the insurance company, which in its reply took the plea that there is no deficiency on its part as complainant did not provide the final closure report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. which is essential for deciding the claim. District Forum vide order dated 07.09.2007, allowed the complaint and passed following directions; "1. OP shall take the car from P.S. Sarhali, and make get the transferred in his name.

The OP will pay Rs. 3,90,000/ - insurance amount to the complainant and the complainant will sign letter of subrogation, letter to transport authorities for transferring the title in the name of OP and all of the documents necessary in this behalf. The complainant will have no right or title as the same is recovered. The car is now stated to be lying in PS. Sarhali, Distt. Amritsar, Punjab.

On account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs. 50,000/ - to the complainant towards compensation.

OP will pay Rs. 10,000/ - towards cost of litigation." 4. Being aggrieved, Insurance Company filed (Appeal No. 816 of 2007) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ''State Commission''), which vide impugned order dated 12.12.2008, disposed of the same in the following terms;

"1. Respondent/complainant shall take over the possession of the vehicle in question immediately on superdari.

Appellant -Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for the loss and damage suffered by the vehicle and for mental agony, harassment and delay in processing the claim of the respondent."

NOT satisfied with the order of the State Commission, both parties filed separate Revision Petitions. Insurance Company filed (Revision Petition No. 1455 of 2009) whereas, Complainant filed (Revision Petition No. 3513 of 2009). Since, these revision petitions arise from common impugned order, the same are being disposed of by this single order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

IT is submitted by learned counsel for Complainant, that complainant is entitled to 75% of the value of the vehicle, even as per the internal guidelines of the insurance company. Further, after inspecting the vehicle on the order of the District Forum, Insurance Company failed to give any valuation of the damages, thereby causing more delay and harassment to the complainant for which he deserves compensation. Since, vehicle has been recovered, complainant is entitled to receive the vehicle in the same legal position as it was at the time of insurance it or at the time of theft. Moreover, complainant has spent about Rs. 35,000/ - in recovering the vehicle and bringing the same to New Delhi. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that State Commission has committed grave error in not directing the complainant to get the damage assessed from a surveyor appointed by Insurance Company. The surveyor is the best person to make assessment of the loss and his report should be accepted. The State Commission has given no reasons to make its own assessment of the assumed loss. Hence, there is no justification for awarding a huge sum as compensation.

DISTRICT Forum in its order held; "The complaint lodged the report with the police on the same day. The vehicle was stolen from the outside house of the complainant between 4 to 5 AM. After investigation the police has sent the report as untraced. OP was informed on the next day through fax message. But the OP did not pay any compensation and is taking unnecessary and untenable plea that the complainant had not supplied the documents. The complainant has placed on record the copy of FIR and copy of untraced report which OP could obtain from the Police Station also. This shows that OP had no intention to make any payment. The vehicle during the pendency of this complaint was recovered by the Police and is presently lying P.S. Sarhali, District Amritsar, Punjab. As per the complainant, RC and other documents as were required by OP were given to the OP. The OP can take the car from the said police station. This Forum orders as follows;

OP shall take the car from P.S. Sarhali, and make get the transferred in his name.

The OP will pay Rs. 3,90,000/ - insurance amount to the complainant and the complainant will sign letter of subrogation, letter to transport authorities for transferring the title in the name of OP and all of the documents necessary in this behalf. The complainant will have no right or title as the same is recovered. The car is now stated to be lying in P.S. Serhali, Distt, Amritsar, Punjab.

On account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs. 50,000/ -to the complainant towards compensation.

OP will pay Rs. 10,000/ - towards cost of litigation."

ON the other hand, State Commission in its impugned order observed; "2. Admittedly the vehicle was insured with the appellant for Rs. 3,90,000/ - for a period of one year w.e.f. 7.8.04 to 6.8.05 and the same was stolen on 23.8.04. Respondent lodged complaint with the police on the same day. Vehicle was stolen outside the house of the respondent. On the next day appellant was informed through fax message. After investigation the police sent report as ''untraced''. The vehicle was recovered at Punjab in December, 2005 whereas the complaint was filed in April, 2005 before the District Forum as the appellant company declined to honour the insurance claim due to non -furnishing of requisite documents.

It is not understandable as to why the appellant took so much time in accepting the claim of the respondent as it was a case of total loss by way of theft of vehicle. However, the appellant has not specified to as what were the documents which were to be furnished by the appellant for facilitating it to process the claim. It appears that the appellant had contented that they did not proceed with the claim because of the recovery of the vehicle in September, 2005 by the Punjab Police.

We have been impressing upon the insurance companies not to keep the claim of the insured pending for long and process the same within a reasonable period say within six months and delaying the claim itself amounts to deficiency in service and since in the instant case documents were furnished in December, 2004 still the appellant took inordinate time to process the claim.

However, counsel for the appellant has also referred to letter dated 6.5.2005 sent to respondent seeking final report under section 173 duly acknowledged by concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and also original driving license for verification, confirmation of theft/loss of vehicle and proof that before theft, vehicle was in running condition. In our view all these were the delaying tactics adopted by the company.

It is also not understandable as to what prevented the respondent to take possession of the vehicle inspite of having come to know in December, 2005 that the same has been recovered by way of moving an application before the Magistrate, on Superdari. This also shows that the respondent was also not inclined to take back the vehicle as the vehicle suffered heavy damage etc. If the vehicle had suffered any damage the same should have been assessed by the Surveyor of the Insurance company. However, appellant had appointed surveyor to assess the market value who assured the loss to the depreciated price of the vehicle but did not assess the actual loss or damage.

Appellant has to pay compensation to the respondent adequately for the loss suffered by him due to deficiency in service in not honouring the claim in reasonable period and secondly in not getting the actual damage done to the vehicle after it was recorded and thereby forcing the respondent to abandon the vehicle at the Police Station.

However, in the instant case, the District Forum has not only awarded insurance amount to the respondent but has also directed to the appellant to take possession of the vehicle as if the appellant company was its owner. It is the respondent who is the owner of the vehicle. Rather it should have directed the police to handover the possession of the vehicle to the appellant for assessing the damage.

Taking overall view of the matter and the loss suffered by the respondent as by now vehicle might have been reduced to junk. We decide the appeal in the following terms: -

Respondent/complainant shall take over the possession of the vehicle in question immediately on superdari.

Appellant -Insurance company shall pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for the loss and damage suffered by the vehicle and for mental agony, harassment and delay in processing the claim of the respondent."

The vehicle in question was purchased in August, 2002. It was stolen on 23.08.2004 and intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Company on 24.08.2004. At the time of theft, insured value of the vehicle was Rs. 3,90,000/ -.

AFTER the complainant has lodged its claim with the Insurance Company, it had asked for untrace report under Section 173 Cr P.C. As per record, this report was submitted to the Insurance Company by the Complainant on 10.09.2004. Since, Insurance Company did not settle the Complainant''s claim, he filed complaint before District Forum on 19.4.2005. Later on, vehicle in question was recovered from Punjab in December, 2005.

THUS , it is manifestly clear from the record that complainant had submitted all the necessary documents as required by the Insurance Company, in September, 2004 itself. But for reasons best known to it, Insurance Company did not settle Complainant''s claim for about 20 months. Thus, deficiency on the part of Insurance Company is writ large in this case. Now question for consideration is, as to what amount of compensation complainant is entitled for.

IT is not in dispute that at the time of theft, vehicle in question had been in use for two years. Secondly, after the vehicle was recovered, it was duty of complainant being the registered owner of vehicle, to have taken the vehicle on Superdari. In this regard State Commission rightly observed; "6. It is also not understandable as to what prevented the respondent to take possession of the vehicle inspite of having come to know in December, 2005 that the same has been received by way of moving an application before the Magistrate, on Superdari. This also shows that the respondent was also not inclined to take back the vehicle as the vehicle suffered heavy damage etc. If the vehicle had suffered any damage the same should have been assessed by the Surveyor of the insurance company. However, appellant had appointed surveyor to assess the market value who assured the loss to the depreciated price of the vehicle but did not assess the actual loss or damage."

IT appears that Complainant had taken superdari of vehicle in July, 2009 only, after disposal of Insurance Company''s appeal by the State Commission. Another important fact to be noted is, that during pendency of (Revision Petition No. 3513 of 2009) on 29th October, 2009, it was brought to the knowledge of this Commission, that Joint Surveyor was appointed and who assessed the damages as Rs. 1,03,480,75P.

THE Surveyor as per this report dated 27.10.2009, has assessed the loss at Rs. 1,03,480.78P. He also observed in his report; "While assessing the loss we have considered almost all the parts which were damaged and demanded in the estimate. To ascertain the damages to chassis the vehicle need to be dismantled. On dismantling if the chassis is found damaged the replacement of the chassis can be considered. The cost of new chassis is Rs. 58,691/ -. The labour charges for replacing chassis if needed will be paid extra. (Labour charges for replacing chassis Rs. 14,000/ -).

Parts such as brake booster, master cylinder, AC condenser etc. are subject to dismantling and will be considered if found damaged.

If any other part is found damaged on dismantling will be considered and allowed.

The Alternator and the left footboard were found missing."

THEREFORE , taking into consideration all the relevant facts as narrated above and particularly the act of complainant in not taking the vehicle on Suerdari for a long period of about four years after he got knowledge of its recovery, I find that State Commission was justified in modifying the order of District Forum. Hence, I hold that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which could justify my intervention in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Hence, above noted revision petitions having no legal merits stand dismissed.

NO order as to cost.