CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.132/2010
SH. VEDVEER SINGH
S/O SH. JAI PAL SINGH
R/O A/86-A, BLOCK-A, DEVLI EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI-110062
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER/DIRECTOR,
60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 07.03.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
It is not in dispute that complainant purchased an Indica Xeta Car of Tota Motors bearing No.DL 1Y B 3129 in the month of December 2007 and got the same insured with OP for a period of one year from 31.12.2007 to 30.12.2008 on IDV of Rs.2,70,779/-. The aforesaid vehicle was stolen in the night of 26.12.08 – 27.12.2008. The police and OP were duly informed and finally an untraced report was submitted.
OP was under the liability to compensate the complainant for the value of the said vehicle i.e. for a sum of Rs.2,70,779/-. However, to the utter surprise of complainant, OP offered to pay only Rs.1,72,500/- instead of Rs.2,70,779/-. Surveyor/employee of OP threatened complainant that either accept Rs.1,72,500/- or forget getting anything from OP and compelled complainant to sign certain blank papers.
Complainant was forced to issue a legal notice dated 13.01.2010 calling upon OP to pay IDV of Rs.2,70,779/- alongwith compensation of Rs.80,000/-. However, OP did not reply the said notice accordingly this complaint has been filed wherein complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.2,70,779/- toward the IDV of the vehicle insured alongwith interest @ 18% and also to pay Rs.80,000/- for compensation and Rs.25,000/- for legal expenses.
OP in the reply took the preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and OP has acted and taken the best possible steps as per IMT(Indian Motor Tariff). Vehicle was purchased by complainant from Vivek Automobiles Limited, Mathura Road, Delhi and sale price of the vehicle was Rs.2,44,030/- whereas complainant submitted false information to the agent of OP and obtained insurance of the said vehicle for IDV of Rs.270779/-. Complainant got inflated IDV from OP which is even more than value of the vehicle which is not legally tenable. Complainant got CNG installed in the vehicle as reflected in the registration form of the said vehicle and OP was never informed about installation of CNG and no such endorsement is made on the insurance policy.
After getting intimation about loss of vehicle, OP appointed Investigator. Statements taken during investigation raised following issues:-
- Inflated IDV which is in excess to value of vehicle.
- No endorsement of CNG on insurance certificate.
- Proper care of vehicle is not taken.
Investigator contacted complainant and informed him regarding the investigation. Complainant thereafter agreed to all the facts and also consented to the settlement.
Since complainant himself has agreed to the amount as full and final settlement hence the present complaint is not maintainable. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records.
It is proved from the documents on record that complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle for Rs.244030/-. The IDV cannot be more than the purchase value of the vehicle. So for the purpose of adjudication, the IDV of the vehicle has to be Rs.2,44,030/-. So far as the fitting of CNG is concerned, the Registration Authorities were duly informed about it. Simply because the insurance company was not informed about it is not a ground for forcing the complainant to arrive at a settlement for a sum less than the assured value. It is significant to note that it is the investigator who has obtained the written consent of complaint and not OP. It is not the job of investigator to ask a party to enter into a settlement. Investigator is supposed to be an independent person. It is not that complainant has accepted any amount on the basis of so called settlement for a sum of Rs.1,73,500/-. Complainant has served a legal notice on OP dated 13.1.10 wherein he has specifically stated that he was forced to enter into the settlement. That notice has not been replied by OP meaning thereby that whatever stated in the notice deemed to have been admitted by him. Settlement has to be voluntary and since complainant has categorically stated that he has not entered into the settlement nor accepted any amount, there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant. It is useful to refer to case of Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 311 – In that case a cheque was sent to complainant with the condition that if the same is not acceptable to him then the cheque be returned. Complainant got the cheque encashed. It has held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the encashment of the cheques amounted to acceptance of the amount in full and final settlement of the claim. It was further laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the protest and non-acceptance must be conveyed before the cheques were encashed and if the cheques were encashed without protest, then it must be held that the acceptance was voluntary.
As already stated in this case complaint has not agreed to so called settlement and it is specifically stated that he was forced to sign the so called settlement and a legal notice in this regard was sent.
It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to pay Rs.244030/- towards IDV value of vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
