Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/71/2023

Mr.Vignesh Venkatachalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Go Digit General Insurance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.Nila,Akalya U.Ramya

22 Nov 2023

ORDER

 

Complaint presented on  :05.04.2023    Date of disposal            :29.11.2023

                                                                         

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                      : MEMBER-1

                               THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA       : MEMBER II

 

 

C.C. No.71/2023

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

 

 

1.Mr.Vignesh Venkatachalam

S/o Mr.S.Venkatachalam

New No.325 (Old No.158)

Third Floor Linghi Chetty street

Parrys Chennai-600 001.

 

2.Ms.Anu Ganesan

D/o Mr.R.Ganesan

New No.325 (Old No.158)

Third Floor Linghi Chetty street

Parrys Chennai-600 001.

                                                                                         .. Complainants.                              

..Vs..

 

M/s Go Digit General Insurance Ltd.

Represented by its Authorised Signatory

Atlantis, 95, 4B Cross Road,

Koramangala Industries Layout

5^th Block Bengaluru,Karnataka-560095                       . ..  Opposite party

 

 

 

Counsel for the complainants                     : M/s. M.Nila

Counsel for   opposite party                     : Ex-parte

 

ORDER

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the Opposite party to pay each of the complainants the sum insured of Rs.81,718/- for missed connection Rs.4,086/- for common carrier delay and Rs.8172/- delay of check in baggage in all totaling to a sum of Rs.93,976/- and to pay each of the complainants a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and to pay each of the complainants a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation or damages for the mental agony.

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainants submit that they had embarked on a trip from Chennai to Turkey and Georgia and availed a Travel Insurance i.e. Digit “on-the-move” policy from opposite party vide policy No.D084210175 for a premium Rs.3,699/- covered from 23.12.2022 to 13.01.2023.  The complainants further submits that original return travel plan were by Jazeera Airways flight No.J9 612 from Tbilisi, Georgia to Kuwait on 12.01.2023 at 14.50 h and Jazeera Airways flight No.J9 427 from Kuwait to Chennai on 12.01,2023 at 17.20 h.  The complainants submits that the first return flight scheduled on 12.01.2023 from Tbilisi, Georgia to Kuwait departed at 15.30 h instead of its actual departure at 14.50 h and this caused to miss the connecting flight to Chennai which departed before their landing.  The complainants tried to contact the opposite party and in the absence of any response, they sent a mail informing the missing of connecting flight and requesting alternative arrangements.  The opposite party through an automated reply assigned TC 75383 as issue number stating that they would resolve the issue.  The complainants further submits that they were rebooked by Jazeera Airways to travel to Chennai from Kuwait on Srilankan Airways flight No.UL-230 via Columbo which was scheduled for departure at 21.25 hours.  Unfortunately, that flight was cancelled due to technical reasons which was informed to complainants many hours after the scheduled departure time.  The complainants were again rebooked by Sri Lankan Airways the next day i.e. 13.01.2023 to travel to Chennai from Kuwait on Qatar Airways via Qatar in flight No. QT-1073 that was scheduled to depart at 16.50 h and this was the flight the complainants finally took to reach Chennai after stranding at Kuwait Airport for almost 24 hours.  The complainants before reaching Chennai had sent an e-mail informing the gist of events taken place.  On 15.01.2023 the opposite party had sent a mail seeking certain details and the complainants had sent the same on 25.01.2023.  The complainants submits that they were provided with policy document with categories of insurance coverage and other general information and never issued detailed terms and conditions which they had to download from internet.  The complainants further submits that they raised claim under three categories i.e. 1) Missed Connection – 1000 US Dollars, 2) Common Carrier Delay – 50 US Dollars, and 3) Delay of Checked in Baggage – 100 US Dollars for each complainant totalling Rs.93,976/- for each complainant. The complainants further submits that on 27.01.2023, the opposite party had sent an e-mail informing them that their claims are inadmissible as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground of delay of flight from Georgia to Kuwait is 1 hour which is less than the time excess of 6 hours and also the layover time between the connecting flight from Kuwait to Chennai is 1 hour, which is less than the time excess of 5 hours.  The complainants submits that the opposite party has erroneously interpreted and applied time excess in terms of “duration of layover”.  When time excess is stated to be a criterion for trigger of a claim, there will be a trigger only when an event that results in a direct / indirect loss to the insured takes place.  The complainants further submits that the time excess can only be interpreted to mean the delay caused due to missing of the connecting flight(s) resulting in “duration of time from the missed flight to the next travelled flight/the number of hours the insured spent stranded” and not the duration of the layover as stated in the rejection letter.  Further, nowhere in the policy has “duration of layover” been prescribed as the criterion for determining “time excess” and the consequent triggering / preferring of a claim and hence the claim of the complainants is undeniable.  The complainants submit that out of the three categories of claims raised, the opposite party had given reasons for declining only one category i.e. common carrier delay.  No reasons or rejection has been done with respect to the 2^nd and 3^rd category.  The complainants further submits that they preferred an appeal on 03.02.2023 but unfortunately the Grievance Redressal unit had rejected the same on 08.02.2023 without any reason by simply concurring with the earlier decision of rejection.  The complainants submits that the opposite party has conveniently and arbitrarily rejected the claims of the complainants by interpreting the policy terms with a self-serving motive and such an act of the opposite party is not in conformity with the terms of the insurance policy, deficient in service and unfair trade practice.  It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

Notice served to opposite party.  In spite of receipt of notice the opposite party never responded and hence set ex-parte.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainants had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked on their side.The opposite party remained Ex-parte.

4. Point No.1:-

The complainants alleged that they had embarked on a trip from Chennai to Turkey and Georgia for a travel period 23.12.2022 to 12.01.2023 and for this travel they had availed a travel insurance from the opposite party.  The travel plan for return journey was Jazeera Airways flight # J9 612 from Tbilisi, Georgia to Kuwait on 12.01.2023 at 14.50 hours and Jazeera Airways flight # J9 427 from Kuwait to Chennai on 12.01.2023 at 17.20 hours.  During the return journey the flight from Tbilisi departed at 15.30 h instead of its actual departure time of 14.50 hours and this delay caused the missing of connecting flight of Kuwait to Chennai.  The complainants further alleged that they were rebooked by Jazeera Airways to travel to Chennai from Kuwait on Sri Lankan Airways Flight # UL-230 via Colombo which was scheduled for departure at 21.25 hours but unfortunately the said flight was cancelled due to technical reason which was informed to them many hours after the scheduled time of departure.  The complainants were again rebooked by Sri Lankan Airlines the next day i.e. on 13.01.2023 to travel to Chennai from Kuwait on Qatar Airways via Qatar in flight # QT-1073 that was scheduled to leave at 16.50hours thus the complainants were stranded in the airport for 24 hours.  The complainants further alleged that complainants had sent an e-mail on 13.01.2023 before reaching Chennai to the opposite party narrating the events and on 15.01.2023 the opposite party sought certain details and the same were furnished on 25.01.2023 by the complainants.  The complainants alleged that they were provided with a document that contains only the categories of the insurance coverage and other general information about the insurance policy.  The opposite party failed to provide the entire terms and conditions of the insurance policy to the complainants, and they had to download the same from the internet.  The complainants further alleged that they had raised their claim under three categories i.e. 1) Missed connection for the time excess is 5 hours– 1000 US Dollors for each complainant, 2) Common Carrier Delay for the time excess is 6 hours -  50 US Dollors for each complainant and 3) Delay of Checked in Baggage for the time excess is 6 hours – 100 US Dollars for each complainant.  The complainants alleged that the time excess criteria under all three categories stand fulfilled since the complainants did not take off from Kuwait Airport as per schedule on 12.01.2023 at 17.20 hours rather they departed from Kuwait only on the next day i.e. 13.01.2023 at 16.50 hours and stranded almost 24 hours at the airport.  The complainants alleged that opposite party had sent an e-mail on 27.01.2023 informing that their claim was inadmissible on the ground that flight from Georgia to Kuwait on 12.01.2023 was set to depart at 14.50 hours but the flight departed late at 15.30 hours and therefore the delay is 1 hour which is less than the time excess of 6 hours and also the layover time between the connecting fight from Kuwait to Chennai is 1 hour, which is less than the time excess of 5 hours.  The complainants alleged that the opposite party had erroneously interpreted and applied time excess in terms of duration of the layover.  The complainants further alleged that opposite party had given reasons for declining only one category and no reasons were given for other two categories.  The complainants further alleged that they preferred an appeal on 03.02.2023, but the grievance redressal unit had rejected the same on 08.02.2023 without any reason by simply concurring with the earlier decision of rejection which shows that the appellate remedy is nothing but an empty formality and an eye wash mechanism.  The complainants alleged that the above acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

We have perused the averments and documents submitted by the complainants.   Oral submissions of learned counsel for complainants also heard.  On perusal of policy document which is marked as Ex.A3, it is observed that complainants had availed travel insurance policy with policy No. D084210175 from opposite party for the period from 23.12.2022 to 13.01.2023 for a visit to Turkey, Georgia and Kuwait.  The geographical coverage excludes USA and Canada.  It is observed from Ex.A4, the boarding pass for the flight No.J9 612 from Tbilisi to Kuwait was scheduled to depart at 14.50 hours on 12.01.2023.  It is further observed from Ex.A5, the boarding pass for the flight No.UL-230 from Kuwait to Colombo was scheduled to depart at 22.25 hours on 12.01.2023.  It is further observed from Ex.A6, the boarding pass for the flight No.UL121 from Colombo to Chennai was scheduled to depart at 07.20 hours on 13.01.2023.  On perusal of Ex.A8, the Electronic Receipt Ticket, the complainants travelled from Kuwait by Qatar Airways flight No. QR 1073 from Kuwait to Doha departed at 16.50 hours on 13.01.2023 and from Doha to Chennai by Qatar Airways Flight No.QR528 departed at 1900 hours on 13.01.2023 and reached Chennai on 14.01.2023 at 01.50 h.  From the above, it is observed that the flight from Tbilisi to Kuwait was departed at 15.30 hours instead of 14.50 hours and there was a delay of 40 minutes and it caused the missing of connecting flight from Kuwait to Chennai which was confirmed by the Jazeera Airways vide their mail dated 18.01.2023 which is marked as Ex.A9.  It is also a fact that Sri Lankan Airlines flight UL230 from Kuwait to Colombo was cancelled due to technical reason as observed from Ex.A10 the letter of confirmation by Sri Lankan Airlines.  From the above, it is a clear fact that complainants’ first flight was delayed for 40 minutes and as a result of it, they missed the connecting flight at Kuwait and the alternative flight arranged by the Jazeera Airways was also cancelled due to technical reason and the complainants departed from Kuwait by another flight via Doha on 13.01.2023 at 16.30 hours thereby they stranded at Kuwait Airport for almost 24 hours.  The complainant alleged that it was due to the delay caused by the first flight, the complainants were stranded for 24 hours at Kuwait Airport and hence and the same was intimated to opposite party on 13.01.2023 as observed from Ex.A7.   It is also observed from Ex.A11, the e-mail communication to opposite party that complainants had forwarded required details and documents for the claim under the travel insurance and requested the opposite party to process the claim.  From the averments of the complainants, it is observed that complainants raised claims under three categories under insurance policy as given below:

1. MISSED CONNECTION – 1000 US Dollars for each complainant:

The time excess mentioned in the policy document for missed connection is 5 hours and the sum insured applicable for the same is USD 1000 for each of the complainants.

2. COMMON CARRIER DELAY – 50 US Dollars for each complainant:

The time excess mentioned in the policy document for common carrier delay is 6 hours and the sum insured applicable for the same in USD 50 for each of the complainants.

3. DELAY OF CHECKED-IN BAGGAGE – 100 US Dollars for each complainant:

The time excess mentioned in the policy document for delay of checked-in baggage is 6 hours and the sum insured applicable for the same is USD 100 for each of the complainants.

On perusal of Policy Document which is marked as Ex.A3, it is observed that the amount mentioned against each coverage is applicable to each member covered.  It is also observed that under Delay in Checked-in Baggage the coverage is USD 100 for Time excess of 6 hours, under Missed Connection the coverage is 1000 USD for Time excess of 5 hours and under Common Carrier Delay the coverage is 50 USD for Time excess of 6 hours with a specific condition Basis 1.  The Basis 1 is – Actual departure time is the time the parking breaks of the Common Carrier are released and departs from the parking gate/parking day.  Any delay in taxi or any other delay at Tarmac post release of parking breaks will not be included for calculation of the common carrier delay cover.  Whereas on perusal of Ex.A12, the opposite party rejected the claim stating that under common carrier delay the scheduled flight from Georgia to Kuwait on 12.01.2023 was set to depart at 14.50 hours but the flight departed late at 15.30 hours, hence the total delay is 1 hour which is less than the time excess of 6 hours.  Also, the layover time between the connecting flight from Kuwait to Chennai is 1 hour, which is less than the time excess of 5 hours.  The claims under Common Carrier Delay and Missed Connection falls under Policy Exclusion.  The learned counsel for complainants in his oral submissions and also in the appeal which is marked as Ex.A13, contended that the time excess is stated to be a criterion for trigger of a claim, there will be a trigger only when an event that results in a direct / indirect loss to the insured takes place.  Time excess can only be interpreted to mean the delay caused due to missing of the connecting flight(s) resulting in “duration of time from the missed flight to the next travelled flight / the number of hours the insured spent stranded” and not the “duration of the layover” as stated in the rejection letter.  The time excess criteria stands fulfilled since the flight did not take off until the complainants left Kuwait Airport the next day i.e. 13.01.2023 by which time they complainants spent about 24 hours stranded at the Airport and therefore the complainant contended that their claims are undeniable.  It is observed from Ex.A14, the rejection of appeal wherein it is mentioned that the stand on the claim remains unchanged. The complainants further alleged that they were provided with a document that contains the categories of the insurance coverage and other general terms and conditions of the insurance policy and never issued to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  But on perusal of policy document Ex.A3, it is observed that opposite party had given a provision to download the detailed policy and it is an admitted fact that complainants had downloaded it but failed to file the same with complaint.  Hence the contention of the complainants in this regard is not maintainable.

In the absence of contra views of opposite party, we have carefully gone through the averments and documents submitted by the complainants and on perusal of policy document it is observed that opposite party have mentioned conditions under the head Note and item No.3 states “If you have a connecting flight, we only cover the delay for the first flight”.    Accordingly in this instant complaint, the complainants had connecting flight and the first flight from Georgia to Kuwait was delayed for 40 minutes which is less than the time excess of 6 hours as mentioned in the policy document.  It appears that policy is covered only for the delay of first flight and thus it infers that it does not cover the resultant delay caused by the delay of first flight.  In the absence of detailed policy explaining the terms and conditions which the complainants downloaded from internet but failed to file the same hence the interpretation by the complainants regarding computation of time excess is not able to be ascertained by this commission.  The complainants further alleged that the opposite party had given reasons for declining claim under one category i.e. common carrier delay and no reasons or rejection has been done with respect to the 2^nd and 3^rd category.  Whereas on perusal of rejection letter issued by the opposite party Ex.A12, it is observed that reasons for rejection of claim for Common carrier delay and Missed Connection also given as Policy Exclusion and in its description it is clearly mentioned that the delay was less than the time excess stipulated in the policy.

The learned counsel for complainants relied on the following judgements:

1. Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, in Appeal No.249 of 2016, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Parmeshwari Devi and Ors.
2. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8386 of 2015, Manmohan Nanda vs United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
3. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana judgement dated 22.04.2008, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Usha Yadav and Ors.

The facts of the above judgements are not similar to this complaint.  In this present complaint there was no delay in submission of claim and there is no ambiguity in the policy clause, and hence the facts of the above judgements are not applicable to this complaint and hence the complainants argument based on Contra proferentem rule will not apply to the present complaint since there is no ambiguity in the terms and conditions of the policy.

Based on the above observations and facts, we are of the considered view that the insurance policy covers delay only for the first flight and therefore the further delay caused due to the delay of first flight shall not come under the policy coverage and hence the complainant cannot seek the insurance claim in respect of 3 categories as claimed in the complaint. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite party as well as by the appellate authority. The complainant cannot make insurance claim by alleging that they were standard in kuwait airport more than 24 hours. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

          Based on the findings given to PointNo.1, since there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and therefore the complainants are not entitled for the insurance claim for missed connection and common carrier delay and delay in check in baggage and also not entitled for compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony as claimed in the complaint.  Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

  In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29^th day of November 2023.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	02.12.2014	Passport copy of the 2nd complainant along with immigration stamps for exit dated 23.12.2022 and entry dated 14.01.2023
Ex.A2	13.07.2021	Passport copy of the 1st complainant along with immigration stamps for exit dated 23.12.2022 and entry dated 14.01.2023
Ex.A3	29.11.2022	Insurance policy issued by the opposite party to the complainants
Ex.A4	12.01.2023	Boarding passes of the complainants for Jazeera J9-612 (Colly)
Ex.A5	12.01.2023	Boarding passes of the complainants for Srilankan Airlines UL230 (Colly)
Ex.A6	13.01.2023	Boarding passes of the complainants for Srilankan Airlines UL121 (Colly)
Ex.A7	13.01.2023	Email Communications between the complainants and the opposite party (Colly)
Ex.A8	13.01.2023	Electronic ticket receipt issued by the Srilankan Airlines to the complainants
Ex.A9	18.01.2023	Email from Jazeera Airways to the complainants
Ex.A10	25.01.2023	Letter sent by Srilankan Airways to the complainants
Ex.A11	25.01.2023	E-mail sent by the complainants to the opposite party
Ex.A12	27.01.2023	Rejection letter sent by the opposite party to the complainants
Ex.A13	03.02.2023	Appeal against the rejection letter sent by the complainants
Ex.A14	08.02.2023	Rejection of appeal by the opposite party
Ex.A15	Undated	RBI reference rate for conversion from USD to INR prevalent as on 12.01.2023
Ex.A16	23.06.2022	Rental agreement of the complainant (also address proof)

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

 

No documents

 

MEMBER – I                         MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT