Delhi

New Delhi

CC/735A/2013

Sweety Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata Aig Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/735A/13                                                                                                                                                                             Dated:

In the matter of:

Mrs. Sweety Garg,

R/o 121, Vivek Vihar Phase-I,

Delhi-110095

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd.,

8A, Bhadur Sha Zafar Marg,

ITO Daryaganj, New Delhi

                                         ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

 

The complainant had got insured his vehicle bearing number HR26BG1116 Audi A4 with OP for the period 10.11.12 to 09.11.13 as per Exh.CW1. Suddenly the said vehicle was stopped in heavy rain on 16.06.13 and it was towed to workshop as per Exh.CW2. Complainant immediately informed the insurance company and surveyor was appointed by OP to assess the loss but OP refused to pay the claim due to water logging as per letter dated 06.07.13. Thus complaint was filed and notice was served to OP but OP proceeded ex parte on 25/11/13.

While screening ex parte evidence it is noticed that OP had repudiated the claim on 06.07.13 under the plea as under "the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of consequent loss, and appreciation the anterior, mechanical or electrical breakdown due to water logging" without supporting any terms and conditions duly framed by IRDA over which claim is repudiated. It clearly indicates the wrong motivation of OP who adopted wrong practices to repudiate the claim. The insurance itself indicates the risk coverage of whole vehicle including plastic parts along with 4 persons including driver, but the said vehicle has been duly repaired by Regent Garage Pvt. Ltd. as per invoice attached with exparte evidence. while observing policy it is not traceable that any such clause mentioned in repudiation ever mentioned which is practice of unfair trade practice, breach of contract as well as deficiency of services on the part of OP who deliberately and arbitrarily denied the claim without supply any term and condition supplied to complainant while the vehicle in question was insured with a premium of Rs.39,329/- on such high price only to cover the risk but OP disallows the claim without application of mind, without considering contract of law just like a parrot to decline the claim.

Keeping in view OP (Tata AIG) is directed to pay to Rs.3,50,000/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim till realization. We also award compensation of Rs.35,000/- for harassment inclusive of litigation expenses to the complainant.

Copy of this order may be sent to Chairman IRDA to issue necessary guidelines to all insurance companies, not to adopt corrupt practices to harass consumers.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 30.05.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER