Complaint No: 197 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 14.06.2019.
Date of order: 05.03.2019.
1. Sunny Goyal Son of Late Vinod Goyal, resident of House No. 200/1 South City, Phase No. 1, Umarpura Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
2. Mohit Goyal Son of Late Vinod Goyal, resident of House No. 200/1 South City, Phase No. 1, Umarpura Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
3. Pooja Goyal widow of Vinod Goyal, resident of House No. 200/1 South City, Phase No. 1, Umarpura Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
4. Ruchika Bansal wife of Anil Bansal daughter of Late Vinod Goyal, resident of House No. 200/1 South City, Phase No. 1, Umarpura Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
5. Mini Goyal daughter of Late Vinod Goyal, resident of House No. 200/1 South City, Phase No. 1, Umarpura Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
…..........Complainants.
VERSUS
1. IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, 5-A Adarsh Nagar, Pirath Road, Amritsar (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory / Branch Manager.
2. Sandeep Lakhan Pal Agent / Broker of IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company, resident of Batala.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainants: Ms.Meena Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.
Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Sunny Goyal Etc., Complainants (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against IFFCO – TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the father of the complainant i.e. Vinod Goyal has died on 09.10.2018. Vinod Goyal was owner of Car bearing No. PB-06-T-0287, SKODA MGD Date 08/2012, MAKE SKODA RAPID AMBITION 6 TDI/CR. It is pleaded that the complainant purchased the general insurance policy from the OP No. 1 through the OP No. 2 i.e. Agent / Broker of the OP No. 1 on dated 27.10.2017 vide policy No. 1-JDK0TDD P400 Policy#27705939, period of insurance from 27.10.2017 to midnight 26.10.2018 and paid the premium through cheque bearing No. 903402 of Canara Bank dated 25.10.2017 amounting to Rs.28,750/- to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that during the period of insurance policy of car on dated 22.10.2018, the insured car was hit with the tree on the road to save the other person from accident, who suddenly came from wrong side on the road in front of the car of the complainant and the car was badly damaged. On the very next day i.e. on 23.10.2018, the complainant took the car to the agency namely Krishna Auto Sales G.T. Road Bye Pass Opposite Rayen International School, New Amritsar vide Invoice No. ASR 001001683 for repair. It is further pleaded that when the car of the complainant was parked with the Krishna Auto Sales Agency for repairs, the complainant submitted the insurance policy's documents to the agency and the above said agency i.e. Krishna Auto Sales filed the insurance claim itself before the OP No. 1 amounting to Rs.54,555/- on behalf of the complainant. The OP No. 1 on lodging the claim by the agency told the complainant to transfer the R.C from the name of his father i.e. late Sh. Vinod Goyal to the name of the complainant i.e. Sunny Goyal, then the payment will be made to the above mentioned agency automatically. Thereafter, on the advice of the OP No. 1 i.e. insurance company, the complainant got transferred R.C in his name from the name of his father on dated 30.11.2018. It is further pleaded that thereafter, the complainant submitted the R.C (to the Surveyor appointed by the agency for loss caused to the complainant) to the agency for settlement of claim. The above said agency again submitted the documents to the Insurance Company for settlement of Insurance claim, after one week, Insurance Company i.e. the OP No. 1 sanctioned the approval for making the payment to the agency for the total amount for repairing of the car. It is further pleaded that the complainant was in an urgent need of the car and due to the said urgency, he deposited the full amount qua costs of repair amounting to Rs.54,555/- + Rs.10,230/- (Service Charges) = Rs.64,785/- to the agency from his pocket and got the vehicle released from the said agency. The agency took the cancelled cheque from the complainant by saying that whenever the Insurance Company will make the payment to the agency, then the agency will deposit the said amount into the bank account of the complainant. The complainant is also the legal heir of his father, but the OP No. 1 intentionally not made the payment till date without any reason and cause. It is further pleaded that after the death of his father i.e. late Sh. Vinod Goyal, OP No. 1 again renewed the insurance policy on dated 22.11.2018 period of insurance covered from 21.11.2018 to midnight 20.11.2019 and made the payment of the premium amounting to Rs.33,100/- on dated 22.11.2018. It is further pleaded that the complainant applied for transfer the insurance policy from the name of his father to his name and submitted the documents before the insurance company i.e. Aadhaar Card, Death Certificate of his father i.e. late Sh. Vinod Goyal and insurance policy documents and R.C of the car. Thereafter, the OP No. 1 transferred the insurance policy in the name of the complainant on dated 02.01.2019 vide insurance policy No. M 45148683, period of insurance policy effective from 24.12.2018 to midnight 20.11.2019. It is further pleaded that even after transfer of the insurance policy in the name of the complainant; insurance company did not make the payment of insurance claim lodged by the agency which is totally illegal and arbitrary. Even thereafter, the complainant made a phone call in the toll free number of the insurance company i.e. the OP No. 1 and asked about the status of insurance claim lodged by the agency and also put enquiry from the dealing hand of the insurance company, whether the complainant is required to lodge the fresh insurance claim itself or not ? On putting this question, the dealing hand of this company told the complainant that there is no need to file the fresh insurance claim, but the insurance company i.e. OP No. 1 without any reason did not release the amount of the insurance as claim lodged by the agency, which is totally illegal and arbitrary. It is further pleaded that the act of the OP No. 1 for not making payment of the amount spent by the complainant from his own pocket is totally illegal and arbitrary, against the rules of the policy. The opposite parties by not making payment to the complainant on bogus and baseless observations are trying to back out from its legal liability. It is further pleaded that it is a case of clear cut deficiency gross negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties who did not pay insured amount to the complainant on false and flimsy grounds and without any reason or rhyme. It is further pleaded that the policy was purchased by the father of the complainant through the OP No. 2 i.e. agent / broker Sandeep Lakhan Pal and 1st Premium of the policy was also paid through cheque and in this way this Ld. Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party No. 1 to honour the claim of the complainant and to make the payment of Rs.54,555/- to the complainant in terms of the insurance policy in question alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of due till actual realization. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant besides the amount in question on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- may also be awarded in favour of the complainant after accepting this complaint, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering opposite party No. 1 / insurance company. It is pleaded that as the policy was in the name of father of the complainant i.e. Vinod Kumar at the time of alleged accident and if Vinod Kumar had died, then the complainant i.e. Sunny Goyal alone is not entitled for the claim and due to which the surveyor Mr. Sourav Arora has sent him many letters dated 03.01.2019, 23.01.2019 and 12.02.2019 to submit the legal heirs certificate, but the complainant failed to submit the said Legal Heir certificate till today and due to which no claim has been paid, so it is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill his part of obligations. It is further pleaded that the intimation regarding the alleged accident has been duly given. The Surveyor Mr. Sourav Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor has been duly appointed to assess the loss and he also submitted his final survey report on dated 22.03.2019 and as per his report, the loss assessed is of Rs.48,373.25/- (Rupees Forty Eight thousand three hundred seventy three and twenty five paise only). So, even otherwise the liability of the insurance company is only as per survey report. The surveyor is duly licensed by IRDA and is competent person to assess the loss. The letters dated 03.01.2019, 23.01.2019 and 12.02.2019, sent to the complainant by Mr. Sourav Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor regarding demand of Legal Heir Certificate. It is further pleaded that the vehicle has been transferred in the name of complainant as per policy terms and conditions, but this shall not give exclusive right to the complainant to receive the amount of claim in the policy exists in the name of his father.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.02.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunny Goyal, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sameer Gupta, (Vice President & Authorized Signatory, IFFCO – TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd., Chandigarh) as Ex.OP-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/6 alongwith reply.
7. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
8. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
9. Counsel for the complainants has argued that father of the complainants namely Sh.Vinod Goyal was owner of car No.PB-06-T-0287 which was insured with the opposite party No.1. It is further argued that father of the complainant expired on 09.10.2018 and on 22.10.2018 met with an accident and complainant had spend amount of Rs.54,555/- on repair. It is further argued that claim was lodged with the opposite party insurance company but opposite party insurance company has failed to settle the claim without any justification.
10. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that as per the policy Sh.Vinod Kumar was owner of the vehicle and Sh.Vinod Kumar has expired on 09.10.2018, then complainant alone is not entitled for the insurance claim and in this regard surveyor had written number of letters to the complainant to submit legal heirs certificate but complainant had failed to submit legal heirs certificate as such claim could not be settled. However, it is admitted by the counsel for the opposite party No.1 that surveyor had assessed the loss as Rs.48,373.25.
11. Opposite party No.2 remained exparte.
12. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the record.
13. During the pendency of the present complaint, complainant had moved an application for impleading legal heirs of Sh.Vinod Goyal and vide order dated 06.02.2024 legal heirs of Sh.Vinod Goyal were ordered to be impleaded and amended head note was filed by the counsel for the complainant.
14. It is admitted fact that car bearing registration No.PB-06-T-0287 was owned by Sh.Vinod Goyal and the said car was insured with the opposite party No.1. It is further admitted fact that the car referred above met with an accident on 22.10.2018. It is further admitted fact that registered owner of car Sh.Vinod Goyal had expired on 09.10.2018. It is further admitted fact that surveyor deputed by the opposite party No.1 had assessed the loss as Rs.48,373.25. The only issue for adjudication is whether the opposite party No.1 can withheld the claim for want of legal heirs certificate.
15. Perusal of file shows that originally present complaint has been filed by Sunny Goyal i.e. only one son of Sh.Vinod Goyal and it is nowhere pleaded or proved that the complainant Sunny Goyal was nominee in the policy. As such we are of the view that since column of nomination is blank in the policy. As such complaint filed by Sunny Goyal alone was not maintainable. However, perusal of filed shows that no sincere effort was made by the opposite party No.1 to settle the claim by demanding names of legal heirs of Sh.Vinod Goyal in the shape of affidavit and rather opposite party No.1 insisted for legal heirs certificate. As such we are of the view that failure to settle the claim in time amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
16. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.48,373.25 to the complainants No.1 to 5 in equal shares alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of present complaint till realization. Complainants are also held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and costs of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
18. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 05, 2024 Member.
*YP*
