Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased one LG LED Model No.TPLC22LF454A from Opposite Party No.2 on 06.07.2016 vide invoice No.17101 and at that time, the Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that this product comes with one year free insurance with Opposite Party No.1 bearing policy No.OG-17-1113-9930-00000003 and a card to this effect was also issued t o the complainant and hence, there exists a relationship of consumer and service provider between the Opposite Parties and the complainant. After purchasing the said product, it was installed by the engineer of the Opposite Party No.1 namely Gurtej Singh on the same day i.e. 06.07.2016 about 03:47 PM as per job sheet enclosed herewith. Further alleges that during the guarantee period, on 24.05.2017 when the LED was running, then suddenly it fell down and due to this, the screen of the LED got damaged. After this, the complainant approached LG Electronics Service Centre, Ludhiana and they gave the estimate for the damage of the product for Rs.8546/- and at that time, the complainant told the service centre that the said product is insured with Opposite Party No.1 and on this, said service centre advised to approach Opposite Party No.1 for its claim. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim for the loss with the Opposite Party No.1, but the complainant was shocked and astonished when he received a letter dated 16.06.2017 from Opposite Party No.1 in which they repudiated the claim of the complainant as breach of the policy condition that the erection to be done by company nominated engineers/ technicians. At this, the complainant told that the LED was installed by the engineer of the LG company as is clear from the job sheet, but the Opposite Party No.1 refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.8546/- on account of costs of damaged insured LED and also to pay of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation on 25.05.2017, the Opposite Party No.1 entertained, registered and processed the claim and repudiated the claim of the complainant after scrutinised all the documents/ details vide letter dated 16.06.2017, as the loss is not admissible under the policy due to the following reasons:-“As per the claim documents submitted and discussion held with you, we understand that you have purchased TV on 6th July 2016 and same was installed at your shop in Dashmesh Nagar on 24th May 17 TV suddenly fell down from the wall and its screen got damaged. To verify the reported loss we have asked for the demo installation sheet but as no installation records were found related to said damaged TV which shows that TV was not installed by LG engineers. The policy issued to and held by insured is restricted to the conditions that erection to be done by company nominated engineers/ technicians. Please refer policy conditions for your reference: Erection to be done by company nominated engineers/ technicians. In view of the above mentioned facts we regret to state that claim falls outside the scope of the policy, hence, we are repudiating the claim and closing the file as No Claim.” In view of this, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant after application of mind and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Navjeet Singh Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R16 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that first of all, the written version filed on behalf of Opposite Party has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party Further contended that at the time of issuance of the said policy to the complainant, no term and conditions were ever explained or supplied by Opposite Parties to the complainant. Further contended that the complainant purchased one LG LED Model No.TPLC22LF454A from Opposite Party No.2 on 06.07.2016 vide invoice No.17101 and at that time, the Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that this product comes with one year free insurance with Opposite Party No.1 bearing policy No.OG-17-1113-9930-00000003 and a card to this effect was also issued t o the complainant and hence, there exists a relationship of consumer and service provider between the Opposite Parties and the complainant. After purchasing the said product, it was installed by the engineer of the Opposite Party No.1 namely Gurtej Singh on the same day i.e. 06.07.2016 about 03:47 PM as per job sheet enclosed herewith. Further alleges that during the guarantee period, on 24.05.2017 when the LED was running, then suddenly it fell down and due to this, the screen of the LED got damaged. After this, the complainant approached LG Electronics Service Centre, Ludhiana and they gave the estimate for the damage of the product for Rs.8546/- and at that time, the complainant told the service centre that the said product is insured with Opposite Party No.1 and on this, said service centre advised to approach Opposite Party No.1 for its claim. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim for the loss with the Opposite Party No.1, but the complainant was shocked and astonished when he received a letter dated 16.06.2017 from Opposite Party No.1 in which they repudiated the claim of the complainant as breach of the policy condition that the erection to be done by company nominated engineers/ technicians. At this, the complainant told that the LED was installed by the engineer of the LG company as is clear from the job sheet, but the Opposite Party No.1 refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.
9. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Further contended that on receipt of the claim intimation on 25.05.2017, the Opposite Party No.1 entertained, registered and processed the claim and repudiated the claim of the complainant after scrutinised all the documents/ details vide letter dated 16.06.2017, as the loss is not admissible under the policy because -“As per the claim documents submitted and discussion held with you, we understand that you have purchased TV on 6th July 2016 and same was installed at your shop in Dashmesh Nagar on 24th May 17 TV suddenly fell down from the wall and its screen got damaged. To verify the reported loss we have asked for the demo installation sheet but as no installation records were found related to said damaged TV which shows that TV was not installed by LG engineers. The policy issued to and held by insured is restricted to the conditions that erection to be done by company nominated engineers/ technicians. Please refer policy conditions for your reference: Erection to be done by company nominated engineers/ technicians. In view of the above mentioned facts we regret to state that claim falls outside the scope of the policy, hence, we are repudiating the claim and closing the file as No Claim.” And in view this, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
10. Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant shows that the written version filed on behalf of the Opposite Party has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment, has held that
“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”
Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the
“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”
Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by an unauthorized person has no legal effect.
11. For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Party is presumed to be correct, the next plea raised by Opposite Party is the insured LED was not got installed by the complainant from the authorized engineer of the company and hence, the claim of the complainant does not come within the purview of insurance policy. Perusal of the Job Sheet placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C1 shows that it was installed by Sh.Gurtej Singh, Engineer of LG Electronic Company who is duly authorised engineer of the company. Not only this, said engineer also got charged Rs.717.70 for the said purpose and it is also got installed on the same day of purchase of the LED in question i.e. on 06.07.2016, but the Opposite Party No.1 in its written version has specifically mentioned that the LED was installed on 24th May 17 which is totally wrong without any iota of evidence on the part of Opposite Party No.1. So, the abovesaid facts and document placed on record by the complainant squarely covers the case of the complainant that it is the duty of the insurer to make the insurance claim under the policy.
12. In such a situation the repudiation made by Opposite Party -Insurance Company regarding genuine claim of the complainant have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pasters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
13. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company have wrongly and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.8546/- (Rupees eight thousands five hundred and forty six only) to the complainant directly alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 31.08.2017 till its actual realization. Opposite Party No.1–Insurance Company is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing him mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (five thousands only). The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated:25.03.2022.
