ATUL JAIN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the New India Assurance Company Limited guilty of a deficiency in service by adhering to the consent letter executed by the complainant. This has come to be the core question in the case, and the facts and merits may, therefore be noticed with brevity, having relevance to the said issue.

(2.) The two complainants are brothers and are joint owners of D. C. M Toyata vehicle bearing registration No. HNQ-1150. On the 4th of November, 1991 they took out an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for one year vide Annexure 'a'. During the currency of the said policy the vehicle met with an accident on the 20th of February, 1992 and a first information report with regard thereto was duly registered. The New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) on being informed, immediately deputed a surveyor Mr. Mukesh Arora, who after the spot inspection etc. submitted his survey report on the 26th of February, 1992. According to the complainants, the damage to the vehicle was got estimated to the tune of Rs.1,40,096/- vide Annexure 'c. Subsequently the Insurance Company appointed Shri Mohmad Yahya as the surveyor who after completing the fonnalities and associating the complainants rendered his detailed report within a month from his appointment on or around the 31st of March, 1992. The complainant's grievance is that thereafter they have been visiting the Insurance Company's head office and the branch offices for the settlement of the claim without any meaningful response thereto. It is alleged that the insurers are guilty of negligently delaying the finalisation of the amount. The relief sought is the sum of Rs.1,40,096/- with interest @ 24% and Rs.75,000/- as compensation for delay and negligence in deciding the claim.

(3.) In resolutely defending the complaint, the Insurance Company in its written statement raised preliminary objection on the ground that the insurance claim had already been settled to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- subject to the complainant depositing the salvage as per the report of the surveyor and the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondents and consequently, there was no deficiency in service. On merits the factual background of the insurance having been taken out and the subsequent accident was admitted. It was however, pointed out that Sh. Mukesh Arora was appointed as the spot surveyor without delay and thereafter a reputed surveyor and loss assessor was deputed for the final survey who submitted a detailed report on the basis of which the. complainant's claim was settled to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- only. The said report was annexed to the written statement. It was further the stand that the complainants were duly informed through a registered letter that their claim had been approved for the amount afore-mentioned on a total loss basis and they were required to complete the necessary formalities of the deposit of salvage and transfer of the vehicle in favour of the insurers. Any allegations of delay or negligence were strenuously denied and the ball was put in the complainant's court on the ground that they have to complete the necessary formalities for the finalisation of the claim. The inevitable prayer was that the complaint be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the annexed documents including the report of the spot surveyor Mukesh Arora and in particular on the survey report of Mohmad Yahya dated the 30th of March, 1992, which made express reference to the fact that the market value of the vehicle, prior to the accident was Rs.1,06,500/- for which the insured had agreed and had given the consent letter on the basis of which the claim may be finalised. The consent letter Ex. O. P1/1 dated the 11th of March, 1990 signed by the complainant Atul Jain on behalf of the insured was placed on the record.