Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/52

Kashmir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikramjit Sahota

27 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 52 dated 03.02.2021.

                                                Date of decision: 27.12.2022. 

 

Kashmir Singh Chandel son of Sh. Dhani Ram Chandel, R/o. Plot No.15012/2, St. No.4, Grewal Colony, Near Karamsar Colony, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., 213/214, 2^nd Floor, Savitri Complex-I, Near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, through its authorized signatory.
2. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., SCF-110, 2^nd Floor, Phase-7, Mohali-160061, through its authorized signatory.                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Kashmir Singh Chandel in person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of Maruti Swift D’Zire car bearing registration No.PB-10-EU-2608. The complainant got the said vehicle insured with the opposite parties vide insurance policy No.P001900002/4101/111343 having validity from 25.03.2019 to midnight of 24.03.2020. On 06.07.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident at Bilaspur-Ghumarwin Road, Himachal. After the accident, the complainant called the opposite parties and took the vehicle at M/s. Abhi Creation, Balu, P.O. Bhager, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. for repair. Thereafter, the complainant lodged his claim with the opposite parties vide reference No.C1204101104247 and the opposite parties appointed Mr. Vaneet Kaura, Bilaspur, H.P. as surveyor. The complainant provided all the documents to Mr. Vaneet Kaura as per his demand on 10.10.2019. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties so many times to get his claim but the opposite parties failed to listen the genuine requests of the complainant and postponed the matter by one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant took the vehicle at his own by paying the repair charges of Rs.1,57,000/- to the workshop namely M/s. Abhi Creation, Bilaspur under compelling circumstances. Lastly on 03.1.0202, the complainant again wrote one letter to the opposite parties and the said letter was duly received by the opposite parties but till date they have failed to settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties and visited their office time and again with the request to settle the claim. Due to said behavior of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered a lot of mental pain and agony as well as suffered financial loss and physical harassment and the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint whereby it has been prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the claim of Rs.1,57,000/- along with interest @18% per annum  and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement. In the joint part of the written statement under the head of factual submission has stated that the vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire VDI bearing registration No.PB-10-EU-2608 in the name of the complainant was insured by opposite parties for the period of 25.03.2019 to 24.03.2020 vide policy No.P0019400002/4101/111343 for Private Car Package Policy. All the conditions under the policy were fully understood by the complainant before taking the policy and he had thoroughly read the policy wording. The benefits under the policy are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and the liability of the opposite parties is limited to the insured perils occurring within the policy period subject to conditions and expectations as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy. Upon receipt of the claim on 06.08.2019 from the complainant for the damages to the vehicle on 05.08.2019, the opposite parties had duly registered the claim vide claim No.C1204101104247 and had deputed an IRDA licensed and independent surveyor Mr. Vaneet Kaura to assess the loss to the vehicle who collected the documents from the complainant, got filled the claim form and inspected the vehicle. Thereafter, the insurance company sent an email dated 13.11.2019 and letter dated 19.11.2019 to the complainant seeking documents for processing of the claim. Thereafter, the authorized officer of the opposite parties applied mind to the facts of the case and not receiving the necessary documents from the complainant, the claim was closed for non-compliance in terms of the policy terms and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 19.11.2019.  It is further submitted that the claim of the complainant has been rightly closed after thorough application of mind and in terms of the coverage under the policy and the opposite parties have rendered full services without any deficiency to the complainant. The complainant had levelled frivolous, bald and vague allegations without any base against the opposite parties and intention of the complainant is just to harass the opposite parties.

                   In the second part of the written statement under the head of preliminary objections, the opposite parties took the objection to the effect that Magma Fincorp Limited was a necessary party for adjudication of the present complaint. The opposite parties have assailed the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It has been further stated that the complainant is not a consumer and has twisted the facts with intention to extract money under beneficial legislation meant for innocent consumers. In reply to on merits,  the opposite parties reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections and submissions and once again denied for having indulged in unfair trade practice or there was deficiency in service and prayer for dismissal of the complaint also made.  

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA/1 and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant also placed on record the documents Ex. CA/2 copy of registration certificate of the vehicle No.PB-10-EU-2608, Ex. CA/3 is the certificate of insurance cum schedule, Ex. CA/4 is the intimation of claim, Ex. CA/5 is the application dated 30.07.2020, Ex. CA/6 is letter dated 19.11.2019, Ex. CA/7 to Ex. CA/14 are the copies of bills, Ex. CA/15 is the photographs, Ex. CA/16 is the legal notice, Ex. CA/17 and Ex. CA/18 are the postal receipts, Ex. CA/19 is the registered envelop and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 is risk assumption letter dated 30.03.2019 along with certificate of insurance cum schedule, Ex. R2 is copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form, Ex. R3 is the copy of email addressed to the complainant dated 13.11.2019, Ex. R4 is the copy of letter addressed by the complainant dated 19.11.2019, Ex. R5 is the copy of final survey report dated 25.11.2019 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

6.                The un-controverted facts emerged out of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both the parties, are that Maruti Suzuki Dzire VDI bearing registration No. PB-10-EU-2608 registered in the name of the complainant met with an accident on 06.07.2019 in the area of Bilaspur-Ghumarwin Road, Himachal Pradesh during subsistence of the insurance policy. The claim No.C1204101104247 was registered on the receipt of the claim on dated 06.08.2019from the complainant, Mr. Vaneet Kaura, an IRDA licensed and independent surveyor was deputed to assess the loss of vehicle who collected documents from the complainant and inspected the vehicle. Thereafter, he sent an email dated 13.11.2019 Ex. R3, letter dated 19.11.2019 Ex. R4 to the complainant requesting him to supply the following documents:

          a. Copy of driving licence

          b. Repair bills along wi.th payment receipt

          c. Aadhar card copy

          d. Name  printed cancelled cheque or passbook copy

          e. Produce vehicle for re-inspection photos

 

7.                It was also specifically mentioned in these communications that in case nothing is received from the complainant within 7 days from the receipt of said communications, it will be deduced that the complainant is not interested to pursue this claim further and will be constrained to close the claim without payment. Despite this, the complainant failed to provide the documents to the opposite parties within reasonable time and thereafter, the claim of the complainant was closed. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have placed any document on record where it has been specifically mentioned or stated that the claim of the complainant stands closed. In the absence of said document, it cannot be said that the claim file of the complainant has been finally closed or not. A close examination of these letters would reveal that these letters were issued after the receipt of the claim supported by certain documents and only the pending documents were requisitioned through these letters. Moreover, non-submission of the documents cannot be made a sole ground to close the claim of the complainant. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical.   

8.                In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

9.                Although the complainant has staked his claim by stating that he has paid the repair charges to the tune of Rs.1,57,000/- to the workshop namely M/s. Abhi Creation, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The bills Ex. C7 to Ex. C14 of even date have also been placed on record but the corresponding receipts of payment have not been placed on record. As per report of Mr. Vaneet Kaura, Surveyor Ex. R5, the net liability which has been assessed by the surveyor as Rs.40,075/-. The complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement, so far as the surveyor report Ex. R5 is concerned as the complainant has neither filed any objections to controvert the averments made in the written statement.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant shall supply the documents mentioned in Ex. Ex. R3 and Ex. R4 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall reimburse the claim of Rs.40,075/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R5 within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Kashmir Singh Chandel Vs Magma HDI GIC                           CC/21/52

Present:       Complainant Sh. Kashmir Singh Chandel in person.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                    Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant shall supply the documents mentioned in Ex. Ex. R3 and Ex. R4 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall reimburse the claim of Rs.40,075/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R5 within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.