Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President &
Mr. Banarsi Das, Sr. Member
SMT. VEENA BHATNAGAR—Appellant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent
Appeal No. 293/SC of 1996—Decided on 22.10.1998
An insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance company is also liable to pay compensation for delay and harassment caused by its negligence in settling the claim.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - CLAIM SETTLEMENT - DELAY - COMPENSATION - INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE TO PAY BALANCE OF CLAIM AMOUNT ALONG WITH COMPENSATION FOR DELAY AND HARASSMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a Maruti Car in taxi quota and insured it with New India Assurance Company. The car was stolen and a claim was filed with the insurance company. The insurance company delayed the settlement of the claim, citing lack of required information from the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which directed the insurance company to settle the claim within 45 days. The insurance company appealed the order.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss of the car to the extent of the insured amount, after deducting depreciation and excess clause. The Commission also found that the insurance company was partly negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant, and thus liable to pay compensation for the delay and harassment.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss of the car? 2. Whether the insurance company was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant? 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for the delay and harassment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The insurance company was liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss of the car to the extent of the insured amount, after deducting depreciation and excess clause, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 2. The insurance company was partly negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant by delaying the settlement of the claim without sufficient justification. 3. The complainant was entitled to compensation for the delay and harassment caused by the insurance company's negligence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The insurance company was directed to pay the complainant the balance of Rs. 30,000/- out of Rs. 1,39,000/- as damages on account of the total loss of the stolen car, along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for delay and harassment, within 30 days. In case of failure, the complainant was entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the total amount from the due date to the actual date of payment.
Mr. Banarsi Das, Sr. Member—This is an appeal filed by the complainant Smt. Veena Bhatnagar against the order dated 22.1.1996 passed by District Forum, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 994 of 1994 by which the complaint was disposed of being prematured and the Insurance Company-opposite party was directed to decide the claim within 45 days from the date of the order provided the complainant submitted required documents/papers within 20 days and if no documents are filed by the complainant in given time, the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to settle the claim on the merit as the case may be within the above given time.
2. The complainant Smt. Veena Bhatnagar in her appeal has challenged the Distt. Forum’s order dated 22.1.1996 on the grounds that it has not appreciated the evidence and material on record while she has already submitted required information demanded by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., and without giving any weight to her evidence the Distt. Forum had illegally dismissed the complaint directing her to submit the required information within 20 days to the New India Assurance Company who had also been directed to settle the claim within 45 days on receipt of the information given by her. It was further alleged that the Distt. Forum has not given any specific finding as to what were the information required by the Assurance Company which were not given by her. She asserted in her appeal that there has been inordinate delay in settling the claim for a long time which compelled her to give a legal notice and file a complaint before the District Forum, Lucknow.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and perused the record and documents filed and Surveyor’s report dated 13.5.1994 submitted by the respondent New India Assurance Company Ltd., before this Commission. The facts of the case in brief are that Mrs. Veena Bhatnagar purchased a Maruti Car in taxy quota No. U.P. 32 A4088 for Rs. 1,73,633.99 on 29.10.1991. The car was last insured on 10.1.1994 to 9.1.1995 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- but the car was stolen from Butler Palace Colony on 12.1.1994 between 8.15 to 8.30 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow at 9.20 p.m. on the same day and report was also sent to the New India Assurance Company-respondent immediately. The police submitted final report to the Judicial Magistrate who accepted the same. She had submitted her claim with Assurance Company and made available all required information but the Assurance Company did not settle the claim on one or the other pretext and she was harassed by it asking her information again and again which she had already furnished. She also sent a legal notice to the New Assurance Company Ltd., and when no action was taken to settle the claim by the New Assurance Company she filed the complaint before the District Forum for direction to it for payment of damages alongwith interest for the delay and compensation for the harrassment.
4. The New India Assurance Company contested the case before the District Forum, alleging that the appellant did not co-operate to furnish the required information with the result the claim could not be settled and thus, the complaint was premature and liable to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties the District Forum, Lucknow dismissed the complaint holding it premature and also the opposite party-New India Assurance Company was directed to settle the claim within 45 days provided the complainant-appellant submit the required information within 20 days of the order. This present appeal filed against this impugned order.
5. On behalf of the New India Assurance Company it was contended that the appellant-complainant did not supply the required information, such letter of subrogation and other formalities and transfer deed of the stolen car addressed to the R.T.O. in favour of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The claim could not be settled for want of the information and paper from the co
