Delhi

East Delhi

CC/432/2017

INTERNATIONAL TRACTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 432/17

 

M/s. International Tractors Limited

Pankaj Plaza-1, Plot No. 2

Commercial Complex

Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092                                               ….Complainant

 

Vs.     

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

10^th Floor, Hansalaya Building

15, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi – 110 001                                                                      …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 28.07.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 18.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 28.01.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This file has been received in this Forum by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi) with the orders of Hon’ble State Commission. 

The present complaint has been filed by M/s. International Tractors Limited, through its Authorized Representative, Shri V.K. Arora, Senior Manager against Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OP) with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

 2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant, being a public limited company, had purchased one Chevrolet Beat Car vide Registration No.   MP 04 CL 7456, Engine No. 132480106 in the month of September 2013, which was insured by Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, for the period from 19.08.2013 to 18.09.2014 (it seems to be a typographical error).  The said vehicle was given to the Manager of the complainant, Shri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, for commuting to and fro from his residence to office and for personal use.  The insurance of the above mentioned vehicle was renewed by OP vide policy no. 214500/31/2015/5975 for a period from 19.09.2014 to 18.09.2015 by charging a premium of Rs. 9,463/- after extending benefit of No Claim Bonus (NCB) @ 20% (Rs. 1,800/-), subject to post confirmation from previous insurer as per provisions laid down in the General Regulation-27 of the India Motor Tariff.

            On 31.12.2014, the insured vehicle met with an accident and Motor Claim alongwith repair estimate was submitted with OP.  Thereafter, surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle and submitted the survey report on 16.01.2015. The complainant has stated that after approval from the surveyor, the insured vehicle was repaired from           M/s. Varenyam Motorcar, the authorized dealer of Chevrolet  by paying    Rs. 20,164/- vide invoice dated 14.01.2015.  Thereafter, the claim was submitted with OP which was rejected vide letter dated 01.04.2015 (later modified vide letter dated 04.06.2015) on the ground that the complainant had wrongly obtained the benefit of NCB. 

            It has been further stated that as the complainant has hundreds of cars and was not aware as to any claim was lodged with the previous insurance company and there was no intentional concealment regarding the NCB, but due to inadvertence.  On 24.06.2015, the complainant vide email was asked to pay Rs. 2,052/- towards the deficit-NCB premium, which was duly deposited by the complainant by Demand Draft for the policy in question and another policy which was duly received by OP. 

            The complainant has further stated that OP thereafter issued a package policy – Endorsement Schedule of date 06.07.2015, where it was stated “endorsement effective from 19.09.2014 to 18.09.2015”.  A letter dated 21.09.2015, seeking clarification regarding the concealment of claim lodged with the previous insurer was duly replied by the complainant vide their reply dated 12.10.2015.

            It has been stated in the complaint that OP did not settle the claim of the complainant despite the fact that as per General Regulations-27 of the India Motor Tariff, it was obligatory on OP to verify and confirm the entitlement of NCB by the complainant. 

Hence, the present complaint as OP did not settle the claim of the complainant seeking directions to OP to pay Rs. 20,164/- being the claim amount, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization; Rs. 25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.   

            Complainant has annexed the Board Resolution in favour Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora of date 29.06.2016 as AnnexureC-1, copy of policy issued by previous insurer as Annexure C-2, copy of policy issued by OP for the period from 19.09.2014 to 18.09.2015 as Annexure C-3, Motor Claim Form with OP as Annexure C-4, Survey Report as Annexure C-5, Retail Invoice for repairs as Annexure C-6, Letter by OP of date 01.04.2015 where claim of the complainant was closed as Annexure C-7 (colly.), email dated 24.06.2015 for recovery of NCB as Annexure C-8, covering letter dated 03.07.2015 as Annexure C-9 alongwith demand draft, Package Policy Endorsement Schedule of date 06.07.2015 as Annexure C-10, Letter dated 21.09.2015 and its reply dated 12.10.2015 as Annexure C-11 & C-12 respectively, copy of India Motor Tariff and Claim procedural manual of OP with the complaint as Annexure C-13 (colly.).

3.         Written Statement was filed by OP, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as the insured vehicle was being used for Commercial Purpose; complainant had not approached the forum with clean hands as they had availed the benefit of NCB by concealing the same from OP; the present complaint involved complicated questions of facts and law, which could not be decided under summary proceedings; complaint was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties as policy issuing office i.e. Divisional Office-19, Dwarka was necessary party.  Objections regarding territorial jurisdiction was also raised.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.   

4.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties, where complainant got examined Shri V.K. Arora, Authorized Representative, who has repeated the contents of the complaint on oath and has got exhibited copy of Board Resolution (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of insurance cover note (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of insurance policy no. 214500/31/2015/5975      (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of Motor Claim Form (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of survey report dated 16.01.2015 (Ex.CW-1/5), copy of bill/retail invoice dated 14.01.2015 of M/s. Varenyam Motorcar, Bhopal (Ex.CW-1/6), copy of letters dated 01.04.2015 and 04.06.2015 (Ex.CW-1/7 colly.), copy of email dated 24.06.2015 (Ex.CW-1/8), copy of covering letter dated 03.07.2015, draft no. 005325 dated 02.07.2015 and receipt issued by OP (Ex.CW-1/9 colly.), copy of Package Policy – Endorsement Schedule dated 06.07.2015 (Ex.CW-1/10), copy of letter dated 21.09.2015 (Ex.CW-1/11), copy of reply/representation dated 12.10.2015 (Ex.CW-1/12) and copy of India Motor Tariff and Claims Procedural Manual of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Ex.CW-1/13).

            Shri Y.P. Grover, Senior Divisional Manager, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited was examined on behalf of OP. He has also deposed on oath the contents of their written statement and has relied on Exhibit OP/A (colly.) i.e. policy certificate alongwith terms and conditions; copy of repudiation letter dated 04.06.2015 and 06.10.2015 as Ex. OP/B (colly.).

5.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties.  Availing benefit of 20% No Claim Bonus (NCB) is an admitted fact, subsequent payment of NCB is also not disputed and the OP has endorsed the same vide Ex. CW-1/10 which reads “Attached to and forming part of policy no. 214500/31/2015/5975”, thus once the OP has accepted the NCB and endorsed the same, they are estopped from taking the plea of taking benefit of NCB by concealment. 

It was also submitted on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that though the benefit of NCB claimed was Rs. 1,800/-, but the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 2,052/-.  Ld. Counsel, appearing for OP, has clarified that Rs. 2,052/- included NCB (Rs.1,800/-) + Rs. 252/- as service tax.  Thus, no excess amount has been charged from the complainant.  The allegations of complainant stands rejected.

Non settlement of claim on flimsy ground amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay claim as assessed in the surveyor report of dated 16.01.2015 i.e. Rs.15,806.49/-, alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint till realization.  Litigation expenses of Rs. 7,500/- are also awarded in the favour of complainant and against OP.  At the same time, counsel for OP has placed reliance on judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court “Sikka Paper Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (DOD 29.05.2009), wherein it was held that “It is only the natural person who can claim damages for mental harassment and not the corporate entity.  Hence, complainant, being a company, is not entitled to compensation.      

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President