Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, P.M.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, KANCHENJUNGA. BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI - Appellant
Versus
NARESH BEDI D-29, RAJAURI GARDEN NEW DELHI - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1455 and 3513 of 2009 in F.A. No. 816/2007.
Decided on : 31-08-2015
Ravi Bakshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Manju Oberoi, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for insurance companies to promptly settle claims and the duty of the insured to fulfill obligations, such as taking possession of a recovered vehicle and cooperating with the assessment of damages.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Theft - Section 173 Cr. P.C. - [Consumer Complaint, Insurance Claim, Section 173 Cr. P.C.] - The court discussed the insurance claim for a stolen vehicle and the requirement of providing the final closure report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. The court highlighted the complainant's submission of all necessary documents and the insurance company's delay in settling the claim, leading to deficiency in service. The court also emphasized the complainant's duty to take possession of the recovered vehicle and the assessment of damages by the appointed surveyor.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a Consumer Complaint seeking insurance claim for a stolen vehicle. The insurance company resisted the complaint, citing the lack of a final closure report under Section 173 Cr. P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company had delayed settling the claim despite the complainant submitting all necessary documents, leading to deficiency in service. The court also noted the complainant's duty to take possession of the recovered vehicle and the assessment of damages by the appointed surveyor.
Issues: The issues revolved around the insurance claim for the stolen vehicle, the requirement of the final closure report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., and the delay in settling the claim by the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company's delay in settling the claim despite the complainant submitting all necessary documents constituted deficiency in service. The court also emphasized the complainant's duty to take possession of the recovered vehicle and the assessment of damages by the appointed surveyor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the State Commission's modification of the District Forum's order and finding no legal merits for intervention.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, (P.M) - Sh. Naresh Bedi/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, 'District Forum') in year 2005 on the grounds, that he is owner of vehicle Scorpio bearing registration no. DL-4CP-5706. This vehicle was insured with United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd./Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- for the period from 07.08.2004 to 06.08.2005. It is stated, that this vehicle was stolen on 23.08.2004. Police case was registered and insurance company was informed through fax on 24.08.2004. Thereafter, claim was lodged with the insurance company. It is the case of complainant, that he gave all the required information including untrace report to the insurance company. Instead of settling the claim, insurance company harassed him unnecessarily. Thereafter, complaint was filed praying that insurance company be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- being the insurance claim on account of theft of the vehicle and Rs. 1,10,000/- by way of damages suffered on account of non-payment of insurance claim, along with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.08.2004 till payment besides costs.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company, which in its reply took the plea that there is no deficiency on its part as complainant did not provide the final closure report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. which is essential for deciding the claim.
3. District Forum vide order dated 07.09.2007, allowed the complaint and passed following directions;
"1. OP shall take the car from P.S. Sarhali, and make get the transferred in his name.
2. The OP will pay Rs. 3,90,000/- insurance amount to the complainant and the complainant will sign letter of subrogation, letter to transport authorities for transferring the title in the name of OP and all of the documents necessary in this behalf. The complainant will have no right or title as the same is recovered. The car is now stated to be lying in PS. Sarhali, Distt. Amritsar, Punjab.
3. On account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
4. OP will pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation."
4. Being aggrieved, Insurance Company filed (Appeal No.816 of 2007) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, 'State Commission'), which vide impugned order dated 12.12.2008, disposed of the same in the following terms;
"1. Respondent/complainant shall take over the possession of the vehicle in question immediately on superdari.
2. Appellant-Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for the loss and damage suffered by the vehicle and for mental agony, harassment and delay in processing the claim of the respondent ."
5. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, both parties filed separate Revision Petitions. Insurance Company filed (Revision Petition No.1455 of 2009) whereas, Complainant filed (Revision Petition No.3513 of 2009).
6. Since, these revision petitions arise from common impugned order, the same are being disposed of by this single order.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for Complainant, that complainant is entitled to 75% of the value of the vehicle, even as per the internal guidelines of the insurance company. Further, after inspecting the vehicle on the order of the District Forum, Insurance Company failed to give any valuation of the damages, thereby causing more delay and harassment to the complainant for which he deserves compensation. Since, vehicle has been recovered, complainant is entitled to receive the vehicle in the same legal position as it was at the time of insurance it or at the time of theft. Moreover, complainant has spent about Rs. 35,000/- in recovering the vehicle and bringing the same to New Delhi.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that State Commission has committed gr
