Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member — The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Gupta & Gupta, Chartered Accountants purchased a Car No. DNH 6444 Contessa Classic Model (1989) on 29.11.89 for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs and got the same insured with the respondent Co. for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs by paying a premium of Rs. 3,331/- for the period 21.11.91 to 20.11.92.

2. The above car met with an accident on 4.1.92 in which the car was completely damaged and the son of the complainant sustained serious head injury and finally succumbed in the hospital. The complainant lodged an FIR on 5.1.92. He further submitted his claim with the respondent Co.’s Branch Office in Model Basti, Delhi on 27.1.92.

3. It is stated by the complainant that in view of the delay on the part of the respondent Co. to settle the claim they wrote a letter on 5.6.92 requesting for an early settlement of the claim. That they again wrote to the Chairman of the respondent Co. at their HQ’s in Bombay on 30.6.92 seeking intervention in expediting his claim. That no satisfactory reply was received from the Head Quarter of the respondent Co. The only communication received was dated 8.7.92 which stated that we are enquiring from our concerned Deptt./Office and shall revert as soon as we hear from them. In pursuance of this communication from the respondent Co. HQ’s, their Branch Office conveyed to the Divisional Office vide letter dated 11.2.92 that the claim of the complainant could be settled on a “total loss claim basis” which was assessed by him at 1.25 lacs. Since the amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs was not acceptable to the complainant, the respondent Co. have taken the stand that the delay if any was not due to them.

4. The complainant in his complaint has claimed full value of the car amounting to Rs. 2.5 lacs together with 21% interest therein from 27.1.92 to 16.8.92. He has further claimed Rs. 200/- per day from the date of accident (4.1.92) till 16.8.92 amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. He has also sought compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental torture, besides the cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/-.

5. It has been contended by the complainant that the car was purchased on 2941-89 and the accident took place on 4.1.92 and as such the car was used for little over 2 years having covered only 16,000 Km. and as such was in good new condition. That the price of a new car at the time of accident was Rs. 3 lacs. It is further contended that the car was fitted with accessories. As such its value could not be assessed at less than Rs. 2.5 lacs.

6. The respondent Co. in their reply have not denied the value of the Insurance Cover (Rs. 2.5 lacs) and the period of Insurance Policy from 21.11.91 to 20.11.92. They have also not contested that the accident did not take place or the car was not damaged. It is also not contested that any of the documents filed by the complainant were found incomplete to process the claim of the complainant. In fact, it has been stated by the respondent that on receipt of the claim papers, they appointed the Surveyor Mr. Harbans Lal Arora who submitted his report to the Divisional Office on 11.2.92. In this report the Surveyor had stated that as per complainants assessment made from M/s. Krishna Automobiles Limited, Mathura Road, Nizamuddin, New Delhi, the value of the car was assessed at Rs. 2,53,400/-. It is further stated that the value after inspecting the vehicle damage worked out on repair basis could be approximated to Rs. 1.25 lacs. In his report the surveyor has further mentioned that some more damage may come to light after the vehicle is dismantled. As to the market value of the car the Surveyor from his sand point has only observed “Very much lesser than the sum insured”.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel of both sides and also perused the documents on record. The fact of accident and the amount of Insurance Policy at Rs. 2.5 lacs are not disputed. The only dispute relates to the question of claim amount. In our view therefore, the fac