Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/929/2022

SUNITA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/929/2022
Date of Institution	:	16/11/2022
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2023

 

Sunita widow of Amardeep, resident of Flat No.302, Group Housing Society No.110, Sector 20, Panchkula-134116.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

National Insurance Company Limited, a Government of India Undertaking SCO 133-135, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Sunita, complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant purchased a Maruti Baleno BS-VI car (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) and at that time she was approached by the broker of the OP for getting the same insured.  Accordingly, the subject car was insured as per Bundled Motor Vehicle Policy (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”) which was valid with three year plus one year benefit w.e.f. 5.8.2021 to 4.8.2024 (Annexure C-1). The complainant had paid premium of ₹20,895/- and it was assured by the OP that trouble free services shall be provided under the policy. Unfortunately, on the fateful day of 25.7.2022, when the husband of the complainant namely Sh.Amardeep was driving the subject car, its tyre bursted as a result of which  it struck against a pit hole on the road and thereafter struck against the gate wall of one roadside factory.  Thereafter there was a big blast in the car as a result of which the entire car was burnt into ashes alongwith husband of the complainant, who died on the spot (death certificate Annexure C-3) and the accident was also published in the newspaper (Annexure C-4). At that time the husband of the complainant was carrying a valid driving licence. The matter was reported to police, which resulted into recording the General Diary (Annexure C-6) and another General Diary qua the loss of documents in fire (Annexure C-7) was also recorded.  Immediately intimation (Annexure C-8) about the said accident was given to the OP as the subject car was insured with it. The complainant had submitted all information and documents to the OP who assured that it will settle the claim of the complainant by releasing the payment of burnt car which was insured for ₹6,37,450/- alongwith other benefits covered under the policy, but, till date, nothing has been done by the OP.  In this manner, complainant is also burdened with interest and other amounts towards finance of the car since the claim has not been settled by the OP.  Instead of releasing the IDV amount of ₹6,37,450/-, OP had unnecessarily deputed some investigator to whom the complainant had provided all cooperation and he was satisfied that the subject car was burnt to ashes in the accident and he had also assured that the insured value will be paid to her, but, nothing has been done till date. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, complaint is premature and also that the complainant herself is negligent in non-submission of documents as asked by the OP.    It is further alleged that in fact the complainant was asked by the OP vide letter dated 15.12.2022, followed by reminder dated 30.12.2022, asking her to comply with certain claim formalities, but, since the complainant did not turn up to fulfil the said formalities, claim is pending with the OP.  On merits, facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-asserted. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car which was insured with the OP at the relevant date, time and place, when the same met with an accident and burnt to ashes with the husband of the complainant namely Sh.Amardeep, who was driving the subject car at the time of accident, as is also evident from the copies of General Diary (Annexure C-6 & C-7) and also from the news item (Annexure C-4), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the act of OP by keeping the genuine claim of the complainant pending and by not settling the same within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint of the  complainant is premature and the same being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant had submitted the claim papers, including all the documents required for the settlement of the claim by the OP, immediately after the accident and the same has been kept pending by the OP without any reasonable ground and the said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant had not submitted the documents as requested by the OP vide letter dated 15.12.2022 and reminder dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure R-2 Colly.),  through which the complainant was asked to complete certain formalities by visiting the office of the OP, which the complainant had not completed, it is clear that the claim of the complainant was not settled due to negligence of the complainant and not due to the negligence of the OP and the consumer complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
   4. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OP as it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject car met with an accident on 25.7.2022 and thereafter the complainant had lodged claim with the OP with the required documents i.e. Annexure C-1 to C-8 for settlement.  It is further clear from the allegations made by the complainant in para 6 of the consumer complaint that the said claim was lodged by her with the OP, but, for the last more than four months, OP had not done anything for processing the claim of the complainant except that one surveyor was deputed by the OP who submitted his interim survey report (Annexure R-1) with the OP on 23.9.2022. In fact, when the present consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before this Commission 16.11.2022 and notice of the same was issued to the OP and it was only after that in the month of December i.e. on 15.12.2022 and through reminder dated 30.12.2022 OP started correspondence with the complainant by asking her to visit its office and complete some formalities without even disclosing the formalities which were to be completed by her. 
   5. Not only this, even in response to the said letters issued by the OP, complainant had sent letter dated 23/27.12.2022 (Annexure C-10) intimating that she had already lost her husband and by keeping her genuine claim pending for the last more than five months, despite of the fact that all the documents have already been submitted to the OP, she is not able to visit the office of the OP and requested the OP to send any officer to her house for any query as she was not in a position to move out.  Even after receipt of the said letter or during the pendency of the present consumer complaint, OP has neither informed the complainant about any formality nor has disclosed about such formalities to this Commission which are to be completed by the complainant, showing that the complainant is being harassed by the OP knowing this fact that her husband has been burnt in the subject car and lost his life and also that the OP is compelling the complainant who is not in a positon to come out to visit its office, even without disclosing about any formalities which are required to be completed by her despite of the fact that the complainant has already submitted all the documents to the OP and even the surveyor deputed by the OP had assessed the total loss of the subject car on nett of salvage basis without RC at ₹6,09,450/-.
   6. So far as salvage of car is concerned, the learned counsel for the OP could not show any clause in the policy which empowers the insurer to compel the insured to retain the salvage/wreck and to pay the claim amount only after deducting the salvage value.  Moreover, even otherwise, as per insurance law, salvage after paying the claim in totality becomes the insurer’s property.  In other words, insurer will have ownership rights on insurance salvage and the rights of the possible salvage are transferred from insured to insurer at the time of entering into insurance contract.  Thus, the OP is not justified in offering net liability at ₹6,09,450/- after deducting ₹27,000/- towards salvage and we are of the opinion that the OP should pay IDV of ₹6,37,450/- - ₹ 1,000 (excess clause) = ₹6,36,450/- to the complainant and retain the salvage and dispose of the same at its own level.
   7. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid act of the OP in keeping the claim of the complainant pending, without assigning any reason, in a casual manner amounts to gross deficiency in service on its part which resulted into causing not only mental harassment to the complainant, but, financial loss as well.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹6,36,450/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 16.11.2022 till realization of the same.  The complainant shall, however, return the salvage alongwith all the original documents, of the subject car, to the OP.  In the event of the complainant failing to return the salvage, insurer (OP) will be entitled to deduct a sum of ₹27,000/-, which is admittedly the value of salvage assessed by the surveyor, and pay the balance amount.
2. to pay an amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/04/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member