CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filed this case claiming Rs.3,55,000/- from the opposite party-Insurance Company which includes Rs.1,05,000/- as his insurance claim in respect of the repair of his vehicle and Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for loss sustained by him due to delay in settlement of his insurance claim by the opposite party the Insurance Company.

(2.) The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant is the owner of Bus No. BHJ 5231 which was duly insured with the New India Insurance Company the opposite party No.1 under Comprehensive Insurance Scheme. On 20.8.88 when the vehicle was coming after some repair from Bhagalpur without any passenger skidded on road which had become slippery due to rains and met with an accident near village Dogachhi within Nath Nagar Police Station for which Nath Nagar Police Case No.154 dated 28.8.88 u/secs.279/ 337 IPC was instituted by the police. The complainant informed the Insurance Company and the financier respectively. The complainant also submitted his insurance claim to the Branch Office of the opposite party No.1 at Bhagalpur. But the claim has not been settled. Hence the complainant has no way out to file this case before this Commission.

(3.) On being noticed the opposite party-Insurance Company appeared and file written version controverting the claim of the complainant and alleging the facts hereinafter mentioned. The insured had given only verbal information three days after the accident and the Surveyor was appointed immediately thereafter without any delay though till then the complainant had not filed duly filled up claim form in respect of his claim. But the complainant did not come forward with bills and cash memos to enable the Insurance Company to arrange re-inspection. Mr. H. M. Walia was duly appointed by the Insurance Company as Surveyor to assess loss and as per norms required for the purpose he assessed loss of the complainant for Rs.27,681.93 paise after applying 30% depreciation on metal parts and 50% depreciation on rubber items as the vehicle was more than two years old at the time of the accident. It has been further averred by the opposite party that as the complainant failed to produce the relevant papers required for settlement of his claim there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and the amount claimed by the complainant is excessive, unfounded, imaginary and based on improbable assertion and therefore the complaint petition filed by the complainant is fit to be dismissed.