KAMLESH HANDA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against order dated 6.1.1999, passed by District Forum-I (Tis Hazari), Delhi in Complaint Case No.291/1995 - entitled Smt. Kamlesh Handa V/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vide the impugned order the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant Smt. Kamlesh Handa holding that the complainant has failed to make a case of deficiency of service against the respondent. Aggrieved by the above order, the complainant in the District Forum has filed the present appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : the appellant got her vehicle (Truck No. W DIG 7559) insured with the respondent company vide Insurance Policy No.39/93/1575 on 30.11.1992. The insurance was valid for one year upto 29.11.1993. According to the appellant the above truck met with an accident on 29.5.1993 and was completely damaged. The appellant without any loss of time submitted her claim to the respondemt Insurance Company. According to the appellant she suffered a loss of Rs.1,03,000/- on account of the said accident. The appellant had submitted bills, cash memos for Rs.63,005/-, which she had received from the mechanics, body builder, painter and for charges of various parts. It was also alleged by the appellant that she had to pay salary to the Driver and Cleaner, who were sitting idle for such a long time and also suffered damages for the loss of business and earnings to the tune of Rs.30,000/- as the vehicle was not fit to be used on the road. The appellant also claimed miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.4,000/- which she had to incur for visiting site of the accident and to the places where the vehicle was being repaired. It was also stated that the delay in the repair of the vehicle was on account of the delay on the part of the respondent in settling her claim. However, the respondent vide a letter dated 1.11.1994 approved the claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs.11,337/- only and the appellant was asked to submit a discharge voucher duly filled in and signed with revenue stamp, so that the respondent company may be able to settle the claim to its full and final settlement. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has fixed this amount unilaterally without any justification and the act of the respondent Company was fully illegal and uncalled for and that the amount offered by the respondent Company is not even a fraction of the legal and legitimate claim. Accordingly the appellant refused to accept the offer of the respondent and did not receive the amount of Rs.11,337/- offered by the respondent. Instead she has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the District Forum dated 6.1.999.

(3.) The respondent has asserted before the District Forum that the Insurance Company had appointed Mr. S. L. Jindal as Surveyor to assess the claim of the appellant and the Surveyor assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.12,694.90p. As per Survey Report the estimate submitted by the appellant were highly exaggerated and were without any basis. The respondent had also asserted that the claim of the appellant was processed on merit and her claim for Rs.11,337/- was based on the report of the Surveyor and she was asked to deposit the salvage. But inspite of two letters sent by the respondent to the appellant she neither deposited the salvage nor sent the discharge voucher. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum.