KIRAN BEDI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint has been filed by Mrs. Kiran Bedi r/o House No.24, Sector 10, Chandigarh alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties-National Insurance Company for delaying the settlement of her claim for more man one year for the duly insured truck which got stolen within six months from the date of purchase. She has prayed for a compensation of 50,000/- on account of mental torture, harassment and delay caused in the processing her claim in addition to interest @ 24% on a sum of Rs.6 lacs, for which the truck was insured.

(2.) Briefly, the complainant Mrs. Kiran Bedi purchased a Tata Diesel truck of 1994 Model for Rs.6.40 lacs and the same was insured for Rs.6 lacs for a period from 28.2.1997 to 27.2.1998 vide Cover Note No.91229 dated 28.2.1997 issued by the opposite parties-National Insurance Company (Annexure C-l ). The truck bearing Registration No. PB-10-X-0099 was stolen on the night of 13/14.9.1997. The copy of F. I. R. No.135/97 lodged at Police Station Manimajra has been appended with the complaint as Annexure C-2. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that she filed the claim with the opposite parties on 17.9.1997 after completing the requisite formalities. The opposite parties-Insurance Company appointed Mr. Harjit Singh as Surveyor who submitted his report on 9.12.1997. However, neither any document of his report has been brought on record by either party, nor has the opposite parties-Insurance Company mentioned any reason for the rejection of his report. Subsequently under the direction of their Senior Divisional Manager, Patiala, opposite parties appointed Mr. S. P. J. Singh as second Surveyor for the valuation of the above mentioned truck on the date of theft. In his valuation report submitted on 30.1.1996, this Surveyor assessed the value at Rs.5,70,000/- after deducting 10% depreciation on the purchase price of Rs.6.40 lacs. The complainant has averred that as per the conditions of insurance policy covering the aforesaid truck, only 5% depreciation on the purchase price was permissible. The complainant has further averred that instead of processing her claim, she was asked by the opposite parties vide communication dated 11.7.1998 to furnish another untraceable report signed by any officer not below the rank of S. P. She has alleged that untraceable report signed by SI Bakshish Singh (Annexure C-4) had already been furnished and all these cumbersum formalities asked to be complied with, aimed at delaying the payment of her claim, were indulged in by the opposite parties-Insurance Company. On 1.6.1999, the complainant received a letter informing her that on total loss basis, her claim has been valued at Rs.5,28,500/- which was based on the valuation report submitted by the subsequent third Surveyor-Mr. S. S. Dhillon. The complainant has alleged that this amount has been arrived at arbitrarily and without furnishing any relevant detail/calculation. She has further averred that appointment of third Surveyor after a period of more than one year was done only with an intention to pay lesser amount than due to her. The claim filed by her on 16.1.1997 was cleared on 1.6.1999 after lapse of one year and nine months while the usual period for the same is three months. Due to above stated factors and delay caused to her, she has prayed to be adequately compensated for being deprived of the use of money due to her.

(3.) The opposite parties-Insurance Company in their reply have stated that since their communication dated 1.6.1997 an offer to settle the claim at Rs.5,28,500/- was made, hence no deficiency can be attributed to them in the instant case. The opposite parties have in para 5 of their reply admitted that the valuation report of Mr. S. P. J. Singh, the Surveyor appointed by the Company was not taken to be correct on the valuation made as per the market value and in order to come to the right conclusion another Surveyor Mr. S. S. Dhillon was appointed. It is pertinent to reproduce para 5 which states as under : ". . . It is submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the payment of claim in the event of total loss is admissible on the basis of market value or sum insured whichever is less. Mr. S. P. J. Singh, Surveyor was appointed by the Company and his report was gone through which was not correct on the valuation made as per market value and in order to come to the right conclusion another Surveyor Mr. S. S. Dhillon was appointed by the Company who after observing the market value of similar vehicle of the same model in the adjoining markets/cities rightly assessed the market value of the vehicle at Rs.5,30,000/- and after applying deduction in respect of excess clause of Rs.1,500/- as mentioned in the policy, the loss was assessed to Rs.5,28,500/-. A copy of the Surveyor report is annexed as R-1. " The copy of the valuation report of Mr. S. S. Dhillon quantifying the market value of the above mentioned truck at Rs.5,28,500/- on the date of occurrence of theft (13.9.1997) and his affidavit dated 16.8.2000 have been brought on record vide Annexures R-1 and R-1/1 respectively. Insurance Company in their reply has justified the rejection of valuation report of earlier Surveyor Mr. S. P. J. Singh who assessed the market value of the vehicle at Rs.5,70,000/- terming it to be very much on the higher side. The assessment of Mr. S. S. Dhillon, the subsequently appointed Surveyor who put the valuation of the truck at Rs.5,28,500/- was accepted to be more accurate as per opposite parties as this was based on detailed market survey of similar vehicles of same model. The allegation of delay in passing the claim has been denied and the opposite parties have rather stated that the delay in settling the claim has been caused by non-furnishing of certain essential documents by the complainant herself. The opposite parties have further reiterated that a cheque of Rs.5,28,500/- was offered by them during the proceedings before this Commission and non-acceptance of the same by the complainant clearly establishes that, the delay if any, in settling the claim was on the part of the complainant and consequently she is not entitled to any interest or damages. The opposite party had further contended during the course of arguments that the following three conditions which are mandatory for finalising the claim have not been fulfilled by the complainant: (1) Discharge of loss vouchers from the Financier. (2) Registration of truck to be transferred in the name of National Insurance Company Limited. (3) Duplicate keys of the vehicle to be handed over by the complainant to the Insurance Company.