UMA DUTT SHARMA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is an educated unemployed youth. He purchased a Swaraj Mazda Truck bearing Registration No. HIN 8097 for an amount of Rs.2,20,000.00. In order to safeguard himself against the possibility of incurring losses due to accident, theft, pilferage etc. occurring in the course of the use of the aforesaid vehicle, the complainant took out on 27.6.1988 Commercial Vehicles Comprehensive Policy of Insurance with the respondents herein, National Insurance Company through its Manager, Himland Hotel Shimla. The policy was for coverage of the whole amount i. e. Rs.2,20,000.00 covering the period commencing from 27th of June, 1988 to 26th of June, 1989. In other words vehicle aforesaid was insured as a "public Carrier". The vehicle in question met with an accident after one month and twelve days of its purchase on 8.8.1.988. The complainant had purchased the truck by getting it financed from the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation by borrowing loan to the tune of Rs.1,65,000.00 which was subject to the payment along with interest @ 15% plus per annum.

(2.) Sh. Baljinder Singh Loss assessor of the respondent's Company assessed the loss and came to the conclusion vide his report dated 4.10.1988 that in case the total loss basis was to be the basis of settling the claim, then a sum of Rs.1,99,500.00 should be paid to the complainant. According to the complainant, in case it is to be treated as total loss then there was no question of deducting any amount from the insured sum as there was no depreciation or very minimal depreciation in the vehicle. It is alleged that respondent did not settle the claim apparently for oblique motive of getting commission to which the complainant did not accede. It is then asserted that complainant visited not only respondent but also their Regional offices at Chandigarh and Delhi for about 20 to 30 times and ultimately on 7.1.1990 the respondent settled his claim for Rs.1,49,625.00 to which he consented and gave a receipt in advance (Annexure A- 3) to the respondents. The respondents are also alleged to have obtained a receipt from the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation with regard to the payment of the said amount (A-4) in advance as the truck was hypothecated with them. It is asserted that respondent took possession of the salvage and got the registration of the vehicle transferred to its own name and gave wide publicity regarding the sale thereof in the news-paper of 23.1.1990 (A-5 ). Certificate of registration was also obtained in their name from the Registration Licensing Authority, Rajgarh. Respondents had also got the aforesaid vehicle surveyed regarding the estimated loss caused thereto from M/s. S. M. Co. Ltd. at Chandigarh who gave an estimate of Rs.2,81,740.00 with the provision that there could also be revised estimate and the respondent's Company was informed of this fact vide letter dated 29.8.1988.

(3.) Despite the aforesaid settlement arrived at, it is alleged that respondents did not voluntarily pay the amount due to the complainant or to Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation despite getting receipt (A-3) and requisite letter from the latter (A-4) till the filing of the complaint on 31.7.1990. Thus according to the complainant the respondent-Company has indulged in unfair trade practices and is falsely representing to the public that the services rendered by it are of particular standard vis-a-vis the discharging of their liabilities. However, according to the complainant there was 'deficiency in service'. Thus through this complaint the complainant has sought the following reliefs: - (a) His claim of Rs.2.20 lacs which should have been paid within a month or two of the date of the accident, has not been till date. (b) Because of the non-payment of the claim of the complainant, the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation is charging penal interest and the interest burden alone has now swollen to about Rs.1 lac and the total amount payable to the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation is about Rs.2.50 lacs. (c) The complainant had suffered mental torture and harassment and had to spend on his various visits to Shimla, Parwanoo, Chandigarh and Delhi and is entitled to a sum of Rs.1.20 lacs on these two counts.