ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN
LAWS(UTNCDRC)-2009-1-1
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 06,2009

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Vijay Singh Chauhan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Irshad Hussain, President - (1.) THIS is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing consumer complaint No. 22/2006 and directing the insurer to pay sum of Rs. 2,59,712/ - together with interest @ 9% p.a., by way of reimbursement of the loss occasioned to the complainant on account of accident of his insured vehicle No. UA07M/0463 (Mahindra Bolero Camper.
(2.) THE facts of the case were that the complainant purchased the above said vehicle on 18.10.20034 for his self -employment and got it insured for sum of Rs. 4,05,486/ - with the insurer on that very day. The complainant had applied for registration of the vehicle and on 06.01.2005, while he was coming in the said vehicle to Dehradun for collecting the registration papers, the vehicle, at that time, being driven by Sh. Rajendra Singh met with an accident and fell in a deep gorge and was completely damaged. Information of the accident was given to the insurer on 07.01.2005 and thereafter the complainant submitted claim for indemnification of the loss by the insurer in the prescribed performa. Surveyor of the insurer vide his report dated 24.07.2005 (Paper Nos. 25kha/2 to 25kha/7 of the original record), recommended settlement of the claim on its merits on "Net of Salvage Basis" for an amount of Rs. 2,59,721/ -, after adjusting sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ - as salvage value of the accidented vehicle, which was to be retained by the complainant. The complainant gave his consent letter (Paper No. 25kha/15), the same day to the surveyor. Insurer did not pay the said recommended amount of Rs. 2,59,712/ - to the complainant and instead called upon the complainant to submit copy of the registration certificate, copy of the driving licence of the driver and also the copy of the route permit vide letters dated 27.09.2005, 14.1.2005, 17.01.2006, 27.06.2006, 08.08.2006 and 10.10.2006. The compliance having not been made, the claim file was closed as "NO CLAIM" under intimation by registered letter dated 29.12.2006 sent to the complainant. Even prior to the said letter, the complainant had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurer in not making the payment of the amount recommended by the surveyor.
(3.) COMPLAINANT also alleged that the vehicle had been purchased by him for his self -employment and to earn his livelihood and that he used to earn Rs. 13,000/ - per month on an average and after payment of Rs. 9,393/ - per month, as installment of the vehicle, he had saving Rs. 3,000/ - to 4,000/ - per month for his livelihood. He laid claim for sum of Rs. 5,26,986/ - detailed as below : Sl. No. Particulars Amount (a) Balance amount of insurance of the vehicle Rs. 2,80,486/ - (b) Toeing charges Rs. 13,500/ - (c) Loss of earning at Rs. 13,000/ - per month from 07.04.2005 to 07.08.2006 Rs. 2,08,000/ - (d) Damages for mental agony and injuries Rs. 25,000/ - Total Rs. 5,26,986/ - Insurance company contested the complaint mainly on the grounds that the complainants claim had been duly processed and it sent registered letters dated 27.09.2005, 14.11.2005, 17.01.2006, 27.06.2006, 08.08.2006 and 10.10.2006 to the complainant to complete certain formalities to facilitate finalization of the claim that the complainant had neither completed the required formalities, nor turned up in the matter and the company, therefore, closed his claim file as "NO CLAIM" on 29.12.2006 and intimation to this effect was sent to the complainant under registered post that there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company for the settlement of the claim and that the subject vehicle had not been registered and was being plied without a proper and valid route permit at the time of the accident and that too, by the driver, who was not having a proper and valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in hilly routes at the time of the accident. According to it, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation on the basis of the policy of insurance of the vehicle in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.