Haryana

StateCommission

A/925/2019

AJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JOHAN KUMAR

06 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    925 of 2019

Date of Institution:  22.10.2019

Date of Decision:   06.03.2020

 

Ajay Kumar son of Shri Ram Chand R/o House No.FCA-119, Friends Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad.

 

 

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.106, 2^nd Floor, Commercial Complex, Sector-16, Faridabad through its Divisional Manager (Legal Department).

 

Second Address

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, 5-R/4, NH-V, NIT, Faridabad, through its Divisional Manager (Legal Department).

 

 

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Rajpal Singh Chauhan, proxy counsel for Shri Johan Kumar, counsel for the appellant.

                            

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

            The complainant, namely, Ajay Kumar has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein, he has prayed for enhancement of compensation as granted by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, vide order dated 20.9.2019.

2.      Vide impugned order, learned District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- in lump sum on account of harassment, litigation expenses and interest besides Rs.1,19,000/- as insured value of the vehicle on non-standard basis, to the complainant.

3.      According to the complainant, he had got insured his Santro car for the period from 31.7.2018 to 30.7.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-. On 14.8.2018 at about 10:30 P.M., when the complainant went to Palla Faridabad in connection with some work, he became late and accordingly he parked his vehicle in an empty place below Sohna flyover and left for his house.  After sometime, he remembered that he had left his mobile in the car. Accordingly, he returned to his vehicle and saw that smoke was emanating from the car. By the time he opened the window of the car and picked his mobile from the car, the vehicle had mostly been burnt. He tried to extinguish the fire but could not succeed. He gave a call to the police. Meanwhile, fire brigade reached at the spot and extinguished the fire. There was no other loss to any other property. The complainant reported the matter to the police and, accordingly, DDR No.18 dated 15.8.2018 was registered on the basis of his statement. The complainant contacted the opposite party through its agent/employee, who asked him to move application in writing. The complainant then moved application on 16.8.2018 and enclosed the DDR, insurance policy, driving licence, registration certificate besides reports of the fire brigade as well as of Emergency Services Damkal Kendra, Station Ballabgarh, Faridabad vide report No.MCF/ADFO/2018/220 dated 6.9.2018 and report of MCF Faridabad bearing Book No.12, Serial No.78 dated 6.9.2018 and receipt No.030701828052126 of report of vehicle. He also submitted estimate report of Shamsu Auto Mobiles. The complainant then sent legal notice dated 15.11.2018 but to of no use. This act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and hence the complaint in which he sought directions to the opposite party to make the payment of insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of burning of the vehicle; Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed written version, wherein, it refuted the claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form as after receipt of surveyor report, the claim was assessed for Rs.70,000/- and vide letters dated 16.11.2018 and 3.12.2018, the complainant was requested to send his consent for full and final payment at Rs.70,000/- within 10 days or else the claim would be repudiated but no response was received from him. There had been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the fire claim was got processed and investigated by appointing Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor, who after conducting survey and investigation submitted his report dated 14.10.2018, in which he assessed the market value of the car as Rs.65,000/- and for CNG Rs.5,000/-, in all, Rs.70,000/- and after deducting policy excess of Rs.1,000/- and wreckage value of Rs.9,500/- assessed the loss as Rs.59,500/- and recommended the said amount. However, after the receipt of report of Surveyor dated 14.10.2018, the opposite party vide letter dated 16.11.2018 asked him to send his consent for full and final payment of Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter, again latter dated 3.12.2018 was sent vide which the complainant was asked to give his consent for full and final payment of Rs.70,000/- within 10 days after receiving the said letter otherwise the claim would be repudiated. The complainant failed to send his consent to the opposite party. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Forum while observing that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1,40,000/- in the year 2018-19 whereas in the year 2017-18, it was Rs.1,90,000/-, held that the loss ought to have been caused should be assessed on non-standard basis by keeping in view the IDV for the current year after deducting 15% of the IDV.  As such, it ought to have been Rs.1,19,000/-. Besides, the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- in lump sum by way of harassment, litigation expenses and interest. In all, the opposite party was required to pay Rs.1,21,000/- to the complainant.

6.      During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant has filed miscellaneous application No.57 of 2020, whereby, he wants to place on record the insurance policies for the period 31.7.2017 to 30.7.2018 (Annexure A-4) and for the period from 31.7.2018 to 30.7.2019 (Annexure A-5), wherein, the IDV of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- respectively. These facts are not disputed by learned District Forum. However, according to the complainant the IDV of CNG unit was stated as Rs.10,000/-.

7.      For the reasons mentioned above, the misc. application is allowed and the insurance policies are taken on record by way of additional evidence as Annexures A-4 and A-5.

8.      Even if the insurance policies (Annexures A-4 and A-5) are perused, they do not come to the rescue of the complainant. The IDV of the CNG unit was taken into consideration by the learned District Forum.           

9.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the complainant had agreed not to accept any amount towards harassment, litigation expenses and interest part. Despite the same, learned District Forum, in the interest of justice, directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum on the aforementioned counts to the complainant.

10.    As regards, the claim on non-standard basis, IDV of the car i.e. Rs.1,40,000/- is to be considered but the same has to be awarded on non-standard basis i.e. after deducting 15% of the IDV. The total amount liable to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant thus comes to Rs.1,19,000/-. Adding the amount of Rs.2,000/- to be paid in lump sum, the opposite party has been rightly held to pay Rs.1,21,000/- to the complainant.

11.    In view of the above, no case is made out for enhancement of the compensation to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

 

 

Announced 06.03.2020

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.