Haryana

Sonipat

29R/2014

Smt. Santosh Chauhan wife of Madan Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.United India Insurance Co. Ltd,2.Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd,3.United India Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Ranga

23 Mar 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.29 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:23.01.2014

                                    Date of order:15.04.2015

 

Smt. Santosh Chauhan wife of Madan Chauhan, resident of Chauhan Hospital, Kath Mandi, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Branch Office at Durga Mandir Trust, near Bus Stand, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

2.Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 71/3 Mile Stone, Nil Kanth Dabha, Karnal through its Manager.

3.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office at Subhash Chowk Atlas road Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

 

     ……Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Ranga, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ajay Garg, Adv. for respondent no.1 and 3.

           Sh. Mohit Kamra, Adv.for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging herself to be the registered owner of Skoda Fabia bearing no.HR10R/3233 and the same was insured with the respondent no.1 for the period w.e.f. 23.3.2013 to 22.3.2014. Unfortunately on 30.9.2013 the said vehicle met with a minor accident  and the matter was not reported to the local police.  However, after the accident, the complainant informed the matter to the respondent no.1 and 2 and as per their advice, the complainant shifted the damaged vehicle to the workshop  and the respondent no.2 prepared the estimate. The complainant again and again requested the respondent no.2 for the immediate delivery of the vehicle after its repair, but of no use and finally it was informed by the respondent no.2 that the  insurance company has not processed the claim file. When the complainant contacted the respondent no.1, they gave evasive reply. The complainant at that time was having no other option but to take the delivery of the repaired vehicle after paying a huge amount of Rs.95341/-. The complainant also served the respondents with a legal notice dated 6.11.2013 through her counsel, but the same was also not replied by the respondents and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents appeared through their respective counsel and filed their written statement separately.

         The respondents no.1 and 3 in their written statement has submitted that the insurance company has already paid Rs.68250/- to the complainant vide

NEFT-89 no.1210337 dated 20.5.2014. So, the complainant has no right to knock the doors of the Consumer Forum.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that it is the insurance company who has to indemnify the claim in respect of the insured vehicle of the complainant. It is also submitted that previously the vehicle no.HR10R/3233 was insured with respondent no.1 for the period w.e.f. 23.3.2012 to 22.3.2013 but the complainant has not disclosed regarding the claim taken by her from the respondent no.1 qua the insured vehicle during the policy year 2012  and she got the benefit of 25% as NO claim bonus of the said policy valid from 23.3.2013 to 22.3.2014.  The NCB w8ill be available within 3 months from 22.3.2013 and thus, the respondents no.1 and 3 have refused to settle and pay the claim qua the damages caused to the insured vehicle. The respondent no.2 has a right to receive the amount qua the repair of the vehicle, spare parts and labour charges from the complainant. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that despite having cashless insurance policy of the vehicle no.HR10R/3233, the respondents no.1 and 3 have failed to pay the amount of Rs.95341/- which was incurred by the complainant on the repair of her vehicle and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle of the complainant was also previously insured with the respondent United India Ins. Co.  The respondents no.1 and 3 have submitted that the insurance company has already paid Rs.68250/- to the complainant vide

NEFT-89 no.1210337 dated 20.5.2014. So, the complainant has no right to knock the doors of the Consumer Forum.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 3.

         At the time of arguments, the complainant has also admitted that she has received an amount of Rs.68250/- through NFT.  But the complainant’s stand is that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 3.

         In our view, the No claim bonus should have been confirmed by the present insurance company from the previous insurer.  The previous insurer was also United India Ins. Co. and they gave the benefit of no claim bonus to the complainant.  But it is very surprising that the respondents no.1 and 3 despite having high technologies and computerized system, has failed to mention anywhere that there is a claim on the previous insurance policy or not.  They without checking or verifying have issued fresh/renewed insurance policies in the name of the complainant and issued no claim bonus to the complainant.  It is matter of record that an amount of Rs.4200/- was deducted from the amount of OD claim by the respondent insurance company because they have wrongly gave no claim bonus to the complainant. The insurance company rightly deducted the amount of Rs.4200/-. In the present case, the previous insurer and present insurer of the vehicle of the complainant was one and the same i.e. United India Insurance company, but despite this, the complainant’s claim has not been settled within the stipulated period of 45 days as the insurance company has failed to verify the fact regarding No claim bonus.  The complainant has been made to suffer unnecessarily for her no fault particularly when there was delay on the part of the insurance company itself.  Accordingly, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 3 and thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 and 3 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- lumpsum (Rs.ten thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced:15.04.2015