Delhi

New Delhi

CC/311/2019

BALAJI FREIGHT CARRIER PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.311/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

M/s Balaji Freight Carriers Private Limited

BG-354, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar

Delhi-42                                                                            ....Complainant

 

                                      VERSUS

 

National Insurance Company Limited

808-809, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi-110001                                                        ....Opposite Party

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. PoonamChaudhry, President

Sh. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Sh. Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                                                       Date of Institution:-19.12.2019

                                                                                                       Order Reserved on:13.07.2023

                                                                                                        Date of Order   : -   20.07.2023.

 

ORDER

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Party (in short OP) alleging deficiency of service.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is a Private Limited concern engaged in the business of transport and is registered with various Government Agencies.
3. The opposite party is a leading insurance company engaged in the business of underwriting general insurance business particularly for non-life group.
4. It is further alleged that the complainant firm is a registered owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-09-GC-4576 was insured with OP vide their policy No. 354301311810002674 for the period of one year from 30.12.2018 to 29.12.2019 for a sum insured of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) complainant paid the consideration amount of Rs.39,999/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine) to the respondents in lieu of the same.
5. It is also alleged the respondents issued a computerized 1 page document which did not contain any terms and conditions attached thereto nor the same were supplied to complainant at any point of time.
6. That unfortunately on 05.04.2019 the aforesaid vehicle met with a serious accident and the driver of the said vehicle intimated to the manager of the Company of the incident.
7. The intimation about the accident of the vehicle was also lodged by the complainant with the respondent’s local office who after receipt of intimation deputed an surveyor to inspect and assess the loss.
8. The surveyor visited the spot of accident andcomplainant asked to submit various document and took all necessary documents viz. Insurance Policy, copy of GR, RC, Fitness, Route Permit, completed claim form, Statement of the driver, the driving license of the named driver and submitted his report.
9. It is alleged the complainant was asked to remove the vehicle from the spot to dealers workshop and vehicle was towed down to shine Tech Engineering Works, Delhi by crane through Santosh Crane Service. Complainant spent a sum of Rs.24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand) for the same, the repairers prepared an estimate of repairs for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) approximately, including cost of parts.
10. It is alleged that the OP obtained the signatures of complainant on blank documents i.e. Customer Satisfaction Voucher and promised that the payment of claim will be directly released to the workshop or to the complainant in a short time. OP however failed to make any payment either to workshop or to the complainant and complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs.6,02,843/- (Rupees Six Lakh Two Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Three) being the cost of repair of insured vehicle which was paid to M/s Shine-Tech Engineering Works, Pioneer Tyers, Garud Auto Parts Private Limited, and Narayan Motors Parts as per the bills raised by them.
11. The complainant was not intimated by OP or its deputed surveyor the basis of the assessment of loss nor a report of the said deputed surveyor was ever given to the complainant as per provisions of law i.e. IRDA Rules.The complainant’s claim was not settled by respondents till 13.09.2019 inspite of various reminders verbally to the respondents information about the surveyors report was not provided to the complainant.It is also alleged that to the utter shock of complainant, the OP illegally rejected the claim of the complainant under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
12. It is stated the OP had been delaying the genuine claim of the complainant on one pretext or the other thereby harassing the complainant by the act of OP amounts to deficiency in service as per the Consumer Protection Act.
13. It is alleged that respondent are carrying of business within the jurisdiction of this Forum as such this Forum has jurisdiction pecuniary as well as the territorial to  adjudicatethe present claim.
14. It is further alleged that the cause of action first arose on 05.04.2019 when the insured vehicle had met with an accident. Thereafter when the surveyor was appointed and on various other dates when documents and statements were collected by the surveyor and on 13.09.2019 when the illegal rejection letter of claim was sent by OP. The same is still continuing as the respondents have failed to settle and pay the genuine and legitimate claim.
15. It is prayed that the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,02,843/- (Rupees Six Lakh Two Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Three) with interest @12%, and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) on account of mental agony, pain and suffering, and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) being the cost of the present litigation.
16. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP,OP was duly served on 02.03.2021. However as none appeared for OP despite service, OP was proceeded expartevide order dated 14.07.2022.
17. Complainant filed his evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint.
18. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the evidence, material on record carefully. It was contended on behalf of complainant that respondent had issued only computerized 1 page documents which did not contain the terms and conditions of the policy.
19. As regard the liability of Insurance Company in case the terms and conditions of the policy were not communicated or served on the insured, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Modern Insulators  Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company 2000 (2) SCC 734 as under :

“It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the lads which the parties known. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company and its agents to disclose ill material facts in their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to both equally.

In view of the settled position of law we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the National Commission is not correct. As the above terms and conditions of the standard policy wherein the exclusion clause was included, were neither a part of the contract of insurance nor disclosed to the appellant respondent cannot claim the benefit of the said exclusion clause.Therefore, the finding of the National Commission is untenable in law.”

20. We are of the view that OP failed to discharge the onus of proof that complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. We accordingly hold that OP was deficient in providing services and direct OP i.e. National Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs.6,02,843/- (Rupees Six Lakh Two Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Three) to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from date of repudiation of claim within four weeks of date of receipt of order failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum till realization. We also direct OP to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

A copy of order be sent to all the parties free of cost. The order be also uploaded on the website of the Commission (www.confonet.nic.in).

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of the order.

 

PoonamChaudhry

(President)

Bariq Ahmad                                                                                                                             Shekhar Chandra

   (Member)                                                                                                                                        (Member)