Case: Rajeshkumar Hiralal Bajaj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

( 1 ) WE have heard Mrs. Padoley, advocate for the appellant whereas the respondent remained absent. ( 2 ) WE have carefully gone through the relevant documents and found that the impugned order cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside, for the following reasons. ( 3 ) IN view of the undisputed fact that the vehicle was involved in accident, the only question survives for our consideration is whether the complainants claim is required to be settled by the opposite party and for what amount ( 4 ) IT is important to note that the opposite party having received the notice in this appeal chose to remain absent at the time of hearing and did not submit any submissions on their behalf. The sum insured in the policy is for the Rs. 3,50,000/- and the vehicle was involved in accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The loss was surveyed by the two surveyors of the Insurance Company. In a letter dated 25-5-1993 issued by the Insurance Company to the complainant it is stated that the matter was discussed with Mr. S. B. Rekade, Surveyor and he informed that the complainant have not dismantled the vehicle for final survey and therefore the complainant was requested to inform the date on which the vehicle will be dismantled and ready for survey. This fact indicates that the vehicle was totally damaged and was required to be dismantled for purposes of survey to ascertain the damage. A reply dated 2-6-1993 was sent by the complainant to the Insurance Company and informed that the vehicle was already dismantled and was shown to the surveyor. It is also stated that detail inspection of the vehicle was made and the photographs were taken by the surveyor. The entire survey was done in the month of May, 1992. The Insurance Company had deputed the surveyors to survey the damage caused to the vehicle. The complainant had vide his letter dated 12-5-1992 as per the instructions from the Insurance Company submitted the estimate of repairs and had also submitted the claim on 21-5-1992. It is also found from the record that the truck was lying in dismantled condition till 28-5-1992 and during this period the complainant sent the letters and telegrams to the Insurance Company to carry out the inspection if necessary. The complainant also stated that in dismantled condition the wreckage got rusted. The complainant therefore alleged that despite his repeated requests his claim was not granted by the Insurance Company. In support of his contention the complainant has placed on record the letters dated 4-11-1992, 10-3-1993, 3-4-1993, 23-9-1993 and 2-6-1993 and telegrams dated 15-5-1993 and 24-5-1993 sent by him to the Insurance Company. In all these letters and the telegrams the complainant has requested the Insurance Company to settle his delayed claim for the loss of his truck. However, it is evident that till filing of this complaint his claim was not settled by the Insurance Company. From this fact, it is obvious that there has been unexplained delay while settling the complainants claim. In our view, the delay in settlement of justifiable insurance claim is a deficiency in the service of the opposite party. The appellant has relied on the following decisions of the National Commission in support of his claim: (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Motiram) (CPJ July, 1993 page 126) (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kherani Electronics) (CTJ February, 1994 page 115) (Hanuman Prasad v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) (CTJ April, 1994 page 346) (Premsingh and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) (CPJ February, 1992 page 138)in the aforesaid decisions, the instances of the deficiency entitling the complainant to claim the compensation has been quoted. In view of these legal decisions, we are of the view that there was no complicated question of law and facts and the District Forum could easily decide this question. On the basis of proved facts, while dismissing the complainants claim and directing the complainant to refer to Civil Court, we find that the District Forum failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where the Insurance Company is required to settle the complainants claim for the loss sustained to his vehicle in accident. The complainant has claimed the total amount of Rs. 4,12,805/- towards the compensation. In the prayers clause the complainant has stated that he was required to spend Rs. 500/- for spot repair charges, Rs. 1,000/- for towing charges, Rs. 84,968/- for purchase of spare parts and Rs. 40,490/- for labour charges. The complainant has also claimed Rs. 12,000/- for guarding charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards the compensation for delay, Rs. 95,000/- for loss of earning @ Rs. 500/- per day, Rs. 3,850/- for RTO tax, Rs. 24,000/- as regards loan interest, Rs. 25,000/- for depreciation, Rs. 10,000/- for T. A. /d. A. expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for harassment compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards the costs of appeal. However, in our view, the complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 500/- for spot repair charges, Rs. 1,000/- for towing charges, Rs. 84,968/- for the purchase of spare parts, Rs. 40,490/- for labour charges, Rs. 12,000/- for guarding charges, and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the delay. However, the rest of the claim of the complainant requires to be rejected. The claim of the complainant for the loss of earning @ Rs. 500/- per day cannot be granted since there is no evidence about income. Similarly, the RTO tax, loan interest, T. A. /d. A. expenses also cannot be granted since the complainant was bound to pay the same as regards his liability. However, in our view, since there is delay in settlement of the complainants claim, his claim for Rs. 10,000/- appears to be reasonable and is required to be granted. The complainant insured the sum for Rs. 3,50,000/- and therefore in any case the insurance claim cannot exceed that amount. Hence, in our view the complainant is entitled to receive the total claim of Rs. 1,47,500/- for the items mentioned in the prayers clause a, b, c, d, e and k. The appellant is also entitled to costs of this appeal which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/-

Decision:
0[ds]( 2 ) WE have carefully gone through the relevant documents and found that the impugned order cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside, for the following reasonsIn all these letters and the telegrams the complainant has requested the Insurance Company to settle his delayed claim for the loss of his truck. However, it is evident that till filing of this complaint his claim was not settled by the Insurance Company. From this fact, it is obvious that there has been unexplained delay while settling the complainants claim. In our view, the delay in settlement of justifiable insurance claim is a deficiency in the service of the opposite partyin the aforesaid decisions, the instances of the deficiency entitling the complainant to claim the compensation has been quoted. In view of these legal decisions, we are of the view that there was no complicated question of law and facts and the District Forum could easily decide this question. On the basis of proved facts, while dismissing the complainants claim and directing the complainant to refer to Civil Court, we find that the District Forum failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where the Insurance Company is required to settle the complainants claim for the loss sustained to his vehicle in accident. The complainant has claimed the total amount of Rs. 4,12,805/towards the compensation. In the prayers clause the complainant has stated that he was required to spend Rs. 500/for spot repair charges, Rs. 1,000/for towing charges, Rs. 84,968/for purchase of spare parts and Rs. 40,490/for labour charges. The complainant has also claimed Rs. 12,000/for guarding charges and Rs. 10,000/towards the compensation for delay, Rs. 95,000/for loss of earning @ Rs. 500/per day, Rs. 3,850/for RTO tax, Rs. 24,000/as regards loan interest, Rs. 25,000/for depreciation, Rs. 10,000/for T. A. /d. A. expenses, Rs. 10,000/for harassment compensation and Rs. 5,000/towards the costs of appeal. However, in our view, the complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 500/for spot repair charges, Rs. 1,000/for towing charges, Rs. 84,968/for the purchase of spare parts, Rs. 40,490/for labour charges, Rs. 12,000/for guarding charges, and Rs. 10,000/towards compensation for the delay. However, the rest of the claim of the complainant requires to be rejected. The claim of the complainant for the loss of earning @ Rs. 500/per day cannot be granted since there is no evidence about income. Similarly, the RTO tax, loan interest, T. A. /d. A. expenses also cannot be granted since the complainant was bound to pay the same as regards his liability. However, in our view, since there is delay in settlement of the complainants claim, his claim for Rs. 10,000/appears to be reasonable and is required to be granted. The complainant insured the sum for Rs. 3,50,000/and therefore in any case the insurance claim cannot exceed that amountHence, in our view the complainant is entitled to receive the total claim of Rs. 1,47,500/for the items mentioned in the prayers clause a, b, c, d, e and k. The appellant is also entitled to costs of this appeal which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/