Back
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh (Retd.), President;
Dr. (Mrs.) Amrit Tewari, Member;
Mr. Yogeshwar Sahni, IAS (Retd.), Member
H.S. SANDHU—Complainant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.—Respondent
Complaint Case No. 57 of 1990—Decided on 10.7.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri Pardeep Bedi, Advocate.
An insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the delay in settling the claim.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTIONS 12, 13, 14 - INSURANCE POLICY - DELAY IN SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR GARAGE CHARGES, INTEREST, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND OTHER GENUINE CLAIMS.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle and insured it with the respondent company. The vehicle met with an accident and the complainant lodged a claim with the insurance company. The insurance company delayed in settling the claim, and the complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the delay in settling the claim. The court also held that the complainant was not estopped from making a claim against the insurance company, as the acceptance of the amount offered by the company was not a voluntary act but was the result of a situation forced upon him.
Issues: Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the delay in settling the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the delay in settling the claim, as the delay was inordinate and reflected upon deficient service of the respondent company.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 19,688 to the complainant within two weeks.
Surinder Singh, President — The present complaint has been filed under Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Shri H.S. Sandhu, Vice President, Super Fast Transport Union of Chandigarh against New India Assurance Company Limited with the allegations which are these. The complainant purchased a vehicle of make ‘Eicher Mitsubishi-87’ from Eicher Motors for a price of Rs. 1,91,750/- and got its body built at a cost of Rs. 15,000/- . The vehicle bears Registration No. CHW-6570. It is stated that the vehicle was purchased with facility of loan from the Punjab & Sind Bank, Chandigarh, repayable with interest @ 16% per annum. The Invoice-cum-Delivery Letter is Annexure C-1.
2. The vehicle above mentioned was insured comprehensively with the respondent Company for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs after paying the requisite premium. The Insurance was effective from 19.1.87. Copy of the Insurance Policy is Annexure C-2.
3. The above mentioned vehicle met with an accident on 12.2.88, in which it skidded of the road and went rolling into the Khad about 400 ft. down below. On learning about the accident, the complainant rushed to the spot and lodged an FIR (copy C-3) and also informed the respondent Company as per letter dated 17.2.88 (copy C-4).
4. The complainant lodged a claim regarding the vehicle and the Surveyor of the respondent Company submitted his report on 16.2.88 (copy C5). Inspite of several letters and reminders, the respondent did not settle the claim. Copies of this correspondence are C-6 to C-13. Even the letters C-14 and C-15 of the Bankers pleading with the Insurance Company to settle the claim cut no ice with the Insurance Company resulting in losses to the complainant.
5. Ultimately the respondent by means of their letter dated 5.5.89 (copy C-16) sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- on account of total loss of the vehicle and another sum of Rs. 4,500/- as retrieving charges, subject to a joint discharge by the claimant and the Bank. Having faced the loss for such a long time, the claimant was obliged to accept this offer and did the needful as required by the Company.
6. In the present complaint, the claimant has made a claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,24,500/- under various heads, apart from the amount received from the respondent Insurance Company as above.
7. The respondent in its reply raised certain preliminary objections, the burden of the same is that the claimant had accepted the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- as total loss and Rs. 4,500/- as retrieving charges in full and final settlement and hence they were estopped from making any further claim from the respondent. The facts regarding the accident and other averments made in the complaint were not denied.
8. So far as the ground of estoppel against the claimant is concerned, we find no such estoppel operates in the circumstances of the case. The complainant having been deprived of relief for such a long time, had no option but to accept the amount offered by the Company. Such acceptance cannot be termed as a voluntary act on his part but was the result of a situation forced upon him. We reject the contention of the Company in this behalf.
9. In the wake of what has been stated above, the only point which requires consideration is regarding the merits of the claim made in para 9 of the complaint under various heads. We proceed to discuss these items.
10. Item at Sr. No. 1 is garage charges of the damaged vehicle which have been claimed at Rs. 1,000/- per month for a period of 16 months from March, 88 to June, 89. We think that the claim on this score is exaggerated and it would be fair to assess these charges at Rs. 200/- per month. The total amount under this head works out to Rs. 3,200/- and the same is allowed. Items at Sr. Nos. 2 to 5 pertain to the interest which the claimant allegedly paid to the Bank during the period when the claim remained unsettled. We would level a margin of six months as reasonably sufficient period for settlement of the
