LAWS(NCD)-2005-4-56

VIDYUT URJA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Decided On April 07, 2005
VIDYUT URJA Appellant
V/S
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this complaint the Complainant prays for following reliefs : " (a) To pay to the complainant Rs.4,80,000 being the residual amount towards the claim of the complainant together with interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of application till the date of actual payment. (b) To pay Rs.25,000 to the complainant towards the mental tension, harassment and inconvenience caused. (c) To pay Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant towards the expenses for hiring of taxi. (d) To pay Rs.5,000 to the complainant towards the cost of this complaint. "

(2.) The complainant has alleged that his Daewood Cielo car, as per the particulars set out in the complaint, was insured with the opponent Insurance Company from 29.9.1997 to 28.9.1998 during which period it met with accident on 7.5.1998 at National Highway No.8 near Bareja resulting into almost total loss of the vehicle. Opponent Insurance Company was informed about the same by letter dated 8.5.1998. Complainant also lodged claim for Rs.7,79,171 along with estimate given by M/s. Crown Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for repairs of the car in question. Mr. Bhupendrabhai of M/s. A. S. Rathod and Co. was appointed as Surveyor by the opponent Insurance Company. He offered Rs.1,80,000 by way of total loss. Complainant has alleged that the car was heavily damaged and hence the complainant was entitled to Rs.4,80,000. As the opponent Insurance Company did not pay the claimed amount the present complaint was filed after sending notice/correspondence as stated in the complaint.

(3.) Opponent Insurance Company has resisted the complaint as per written statement dated 27.1.2000. The same is received as Exhibit-6a. With regard to the allegations made in the complaint it has been asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Insurance Company since the loss was assessed as per the Surveyor's report and discharge voucher was sent to the complainant who did not return the same duly signed. Complaint is, therefore, sought to be dismissed with cost.