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 insured his vehicle Maruti Alto Car bearing RC No. PB-10-CG-6700, Engine No. 3489367, Chassis No. 1101159 Make 2008 with Opposite Parties vide policy No. 3001/MI-04365227/00/000 valid for the period from 18.1.2017 to 17.01.2018 by payment of premium of Rs.3872/- with IDV of Rs.66,667/-. Further alleges that during the subsistence of the policy period, the insured vehicle of the complainant on 13.02.2017 met with an accident and in this accident, the vehicle was totally damaged. Intimation in this regard was also sent to the police as well as Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the police authority lodged FIR No. 17 dated 13.02.2017 under section 279/337/427/304-A IPC with P.S.Rahon. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties for the claim of the insured vehicle and also completed all the formalities and also supplied all the demanded documents and requisite information to the Opposite Parties, but till date the Opposite Parties are lingering on the matter on one pretext to another and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.1,58,850/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till its realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant and to pay Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation and also to pay any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit.
3. Opposite Parties 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 as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that immediately on the receipt of the claim, it was duly registered and entertained. M/s.Cross Check Consultants, Ludhiana was appointed as investigator and he recorded the statement and took the documents and prepared his statement and submitted his report calling upon the documents i.e. Indemnify bond, Form No.28,29 and 30, NOC form No.35 and AML documents, but these documents are not supplied by the complainant till date, and due to non supply of these required documents, the complainant of the complainant could not be settled and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On merits, Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, Opposite Parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant after application of mind and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R55 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the written version filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 Insurance Company 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 No.2. Further contended that no such terms and conditions were ever conveyed or supplied to the complainant at the time of insurance of the cows and the alleged terms and conditions are not applicable on the case of complainant. Further contended the complainant has already supplied all the requisite documents with the Opposite Parties, but they are lingering on the matter on one pretext to another. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has specifically contended that due to non supply of the requisite documents, the claim of the complainant could not be settled.
8. Perusal of the record shows that required documents i.e. Indemnify bond, Form No.28,29 and 30, NOC form No.35 and AML documents are the official documents and for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the complainant has not supplied these documents to the Opposite Parties, then these documents could be obtained by the Opposite Parties itself at its own by taking some initiative, but they did not bother to do so and due to this reason, the claim of the complainant is lingering on from the last about 5 years due to the lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. 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.
10. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party-Insurance Company have wrongly and illegally not paid the claim of the complainant.
11. To support their contention, the Opposite Party has cited the rulings, but these rulings are not applicable to the facts of the present case and are not supportive to the instant case.
12. The complainant in his complaint has claimed the amount of Rs. 1,58,850/-, but as per the policy, the Insured Declared Value of the insured vehicle is upto the extent of Rs.66,667/- on total loss/ damages basis, and on the other hand, the Opposite Parties has not denied this claim by filing any cogent and convincing evidence and hence, the claim of the complainant to that amount is genuine and we allow the claim of the complainant accordingly.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct Opposite Party-Insurance Company to pay the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question amounting to Rs.66,667/- (Rupees sixty six thousands six hundred sixty seven only) to the complainant, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in favour of the Opposite Parties, by the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which amount awarded will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 31.08.2017 till its actual realisation. 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.
14. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
