Friday,
March 22, 2002, Chandigarh, India
|
|
|
Forum directs New India Assurance
to pay Ludhiana, March 21 According to the complaint the car (PB-10-V-6917) was insured with the insurance company for the period from May 19, 2000, to May 18, 2001, after payment of the premium. It was stated that Mr Parveen Kumar who was a partner in the firm, along with Mistri Mukthiar Singh was going to Delhi in the said car when it met with an accident near Panipat on December 31, 2000. Mr Parveen Kumar stated that he was having valid driving licence and he himself was driving the car when after bursting the rear tyre, it had fallen in the low lying area adjacent to the highway. “In this mishap both of them received injuries and car was badly damaged. He lodged the DDR no 14 with the Chandni Bagh Police Station on the same day,” he said. Mr Kumar disclosed that the information regarding the accident was also given to the company office at Panipat and as such a surveyor of the Panipat office visited the site and noted down the details at the spot regarding the loss. He further disclosed that the car was brought to Jagraon after spending Rs 2,020 on transportation of the damaged car. After that the consumer approached the company office at Raikot and the manager of the branch adviced him to get the estimate of repair of the car, he added. The complainant said an estimate of repair of the car of Rs 2,87, 601 was prepared by the Chada Motors where the car was parked and it was submitted to the surveyor along with other required documents. He further said he approached the company office for the payment of the claim but to no avail. It was alleged that there was clear deficiency on the part of the company for making payment of the claim of Rs 2,87,601 after investigation of the case. The company pleaded that the complaint was pre-mature since the complainant had not given sufficient time to it to process the claim. The respondent stated, “The claim has not been repudiated so far.” The respondent maintained that after processing the claim, a letter had been written to complainant on September 10, 2001, that the competent authority had agreed to approve the claim of Rs 1,80,000 at total basis and in order to enable the company to release the cheque, he should get the vehicle transferred in its name. The company explained that the complainant had to handover the key of the vehicle also and to inform as to whether the financer was still involved or not. However, the ownership of the vehicle of the complainant and insurance were not denied. Moreover, lodging of the claim was also not disputed. The company stated that since there was no deficiency on its part, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The forum observed that it was an admitted fact the accident took place and the claim was lodged with the company. The forum further observed that the consumer filed the complaint on June 12, 2001, while the report of the surveyor was received by the company on June 27, 2001. The forum stated that according to the report the loss was assessed at total loss basis at Rs 1,80,000. The forum further stated that the company had even offered the payment to consumer but he refused since he wanted more money than the amount assessed. The forum held that the consumer was entitled to recover the amount assessed by the surveyor appointed by the company. |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |