Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/136/2023

CHANDIGARH MILL STORE & AUTOS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

R C GUPTA & SUDHIR GUPTA ADVOCATES

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/136/2023
Date of Institution	:	13.3.2023
Date of Decision	:	1/02/2024

 

Chandigarh Mill Store & Autos, SCO 32, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh through its partner/authorized signatory.

 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 4^th floor, The statement plot No.149, Industrial Area, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh, 160002 through its Branch in-Charge.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Kartik, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant firm is registered owner  of car bearing registration No.CH-01-CJ-0077 and the same has been insured with the OP vide  policy No. 3001/O/269629648/00/000 valid from 1.12.2022 to 30.11.2023 for an IDV of Rs.65,65,000/-  under Stand Alone Own Damage Private Car Insurance  and the copy of registration certificate is annexed as Annexure C-1  whereas the copy of policy is annexed as Annexure C-2. The third party insurance policy was valid w.e.f. 1.12.2021 to 30.11.2024  issued by United India Insurance Company Limited. It is further alleged that the present policy was renewal of earlier policy issued by United India Insurance Company a bundled package  policy valid w.e.f. 1.12.2021 to 30.11.2022 without any break. The complainant after examining quote of premium given by OP insurance company found that the OP insurance company was  asking for higher premium with less coverage whereas the United India Insurance Company was asking for lesser premium  with all coverage as a result of that the complainant decided to cancel   the policy issued by OP insurance company as he had subscribed another policy of insurance from United India and accordingly the complainant requested the OP insurance company for refund vide request Annexure C-3. Copy of policy issued by United India Insurance Company well before the expiry was valid w.e.f. 1.12.2022  to 30.11.2023  is annexed as Annexure C-3.  The complainant firstly took the matter with the agent of the OP insurance company who assured that the policy will be cancelled and refund will be credited to the account of the complainant. The agent of the OP vide communication Annexure C-4 informed the complainant that cancellation of the policy has been done and refund was approved for the same  for process. However, the OP insurance company instead of releasing refund amount of Rs.1,17,802/-  in favour of the complainant after confirmation of cancellation started demanding unnecessary information and documents. Thereafter the complainant took up the matter with the OP insurance company and with its agent but to no avail. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and also that the complainant is not consumer. It is alleged that in fact the answering OP  had offered finest available product which was freely considered and acknowledged by the complainant but later on he sought cancellation and refund.  The OP had only sought certain documents i.e. partnership deed to safeguard  against the potential financial fraud. On merits, it is admitted that the subject policy was issued to the complainant and upon receiving request for cancellation, the answering OP proceeded with the cancellation process  and the policy has been totally cancelled.  However, in order to initiate the refund process, the answering OP requested for the necessary documents from the complainant  in order to safeguard the potential financial fraud. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, complainant tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents. However, as OPs failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 22.8.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments of complainant.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that complainant is registered owner of the subject car as is also evident from Copy of RC Annexure C-1 and the same was got insured by the complainant from OP insurance company and later on the complainant got the subject car insured from another insurance company i.e. United India Insurance company Limited vide insurance policy  Annexure C-3, which was valid w.e.f. 1.12.2022 to 30.11.2023 and thereafter the complainant sought cancellation of the subject policy issued by the OP  by sending request for cancellation  as is evident from Annexure C-4 at page 28 of the paper book of the complaint and the policy was cancelled and refund was initiated by the OP as is also evident from the copy of mail Annexure C-2 sent by OP to the complainant but till the amount of Rs.1,17,802/-   has not been paid to the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OP is unjustified in not refunding the premium amount to the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the OP is justified in withholding the premium amount on account of certain documents being not submitted by the complainant with the OP and the complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around documentary evidence led by the complainant  and in order to determine the real controversy between the parties, the same is required to be scanned carefully
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car. Annexure C-3 is the policy issued by the United India Insurance Company Limited qua the subject car which was valid w.e.f. 1.12.2022 to 30.11.2023. Annexure C-4(colly) is the copy communications exchanged between the parties which indicate that the complainant firstly requested for the cancellation of the subject policy to the OP on 25.11.2022 as is also evident from mail at page 28 of the paper book of the complaint and thereafter the OP has asked the complainant to submit three documents i.e. (i) Annexure A (with company stamp) (ii) Annexure B and (iii) GST Certificate Company relationship not mention for the claimant person, Mr. Sandeep Singla as is evident from mail at page 24 of the paperbook of the complaint. Accordingly the complainant has submitted all the papers to the OP alongwith mail dated 30.12.2022 as is also evident from page 21 and 22 of the paper book of the complaint.  It is further clear from mail dated 4.1.2023 that the OP again started asking   the complainant to submit copy of  partnership deed, which was not asked by OP from the complainant while issuing the policy. The complainant asked the OP vide mail dated 6.1.2023  that under what provision of IRDA they are asking for the same as the same is a  secret document. Thus, one thing is clear from the documentary evidence on record that the OP firstly asked for three documents from the complainant which were duly submitted by him and later on again asked for partnership deed. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is a partnership firm and the subject policy was also issued in the name of complainant firm by the OP and at the time of receiving premium amount from the complainant never asked for the partnership deed and even premium amount was received by it from the account of the complainant firm as is the case of the complainant. Not only this, the complainant also requested the OP to send refund of the subject premium amount  in the account of the complainant firm but the OP has not refunded the premium amount to the complainant despite of its repeated request and started asking the complainant to submit partnership deed on the ground that the same is required in order to safeguard against potential financial fraud.  Thus, it is clear that the aforesaid act of the OP by not refunding the premium amount till date  despite of the cancellation of the subject policy in the month of December 2022, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice especially when the complainant is requesting the OP to refund the subject premium amount in the complainant firm from where the premium amount was received by the OP.  Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹1,17,802/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cancellation  of policy i.e. 19.12.2022 till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to it;
3. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant/s as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/02/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member