MANJESHWAR VISHWANATH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is made by the complainant alleging deficiency in the service of the opposite parties. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant had purchased a Light Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. MMK-9209 for a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- in his own name on 7-4-1989. The said vehicle was insured by complainant with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bombay and had paid Rs. 7,354/- towards premium charges. The complainant alleged that this aforesaid vehicle was handed over to Opposite Party No. 2, who was at Nagpur with the intention to get the required body to be built at Nagpur. It is the complaint of the consumer that the said vehicle was taken by opposite party No. 2 to his solvent plant situated at Umred, which was driven by a licensed driver viz. Sri Krishnan Murkute to fetch one or two employees from nearby village, Dhurkheda. Unfortunately, on the fateful day i.e. on 30th June, 1989, the vehicle was burnt by miscreants. The vehicle suffered total loss. The complainant informed opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 18th July, 1989 to carry out the survey of and to settle the insurance claim of the complainant. According to complainant, the survey was carried out by one Shri A.D. Deshpande on 30th June, 1989 and the estimated expenses for the repairs were settled at Rs. 2,13,368.55. According to complainant despite the surveyors estimated loss, which were duly recommended the opposite party by communication dated 22-2-1991 informed the complainant that they are unable to settle the claim. Hence in this complaint the complainant claimed the settlement of his claim for Rs. 2,25,000/- together with interest as compensation on account of negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1 to settle the complainants claim.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 filed its written version and denied the claim of the complainant for the similar reasons mentioned above.

(3.) WE find the reason for rejection of complainants claim is totally imaginary and unreasonable. The justified claim of the complainant has been wrongly rejected. In our view, there has been a deficiency in the service of the opposite party in not settling a justified claim of an insurer.