Punjab

Sangrur

CC/489/2019

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Policy Bazar Insurance Web Aggregator Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S.Chatha

19 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR 

                                                                         Complaint No. 489

 Instituted on:   10.09.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     19.03.2024

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Village Kanakwal Bhangua,Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Policy Bazar Insurance Web Aggregator Private Limited, Registered Office Plot No.119, Sector 44, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122001 through its Managing Director.

2.             Oriental Insurance Company, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager 148001 Opp. Aggarwal Book Depot.

3.             The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Plot No.119, Sector 44, Gurgaon, 122001 (Haryana) through its M.D.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Chatha, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1  :       Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

For Opp.party No.2&3:     Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                             Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

 

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant purchased one insurance policy online from OP number 1 for his car bearing registration number PB-13-AC-9111, which was valid for the period from 31.7.2017 to 30.7.2018 by paying the requisite premium.  OP number 3 after receipt of payment sent the cover note of policy number 211200/31/2018/46363 dated 31.7.2017.  The grievance of the complainant is that the car in question suffered accidental damage in the area of P.S. Patiala, as such the complainant immediately intimated the OPs number 1 and 2. Further case of complainant is that as per the advice of OP number 2 and 3 the complainant took his car at Saturn Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Rajpura Road, Patiala which was repaired by them and the complainant spent an amount of Rs.36,526/- on its repairs. Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs and requested  OP number 2 to pay the requisite claim amount of Rs.36,526/- alongwith interest, but nothing was paid despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.36,526/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP is an intermediary between the service provider and the customers and it does not have any interference in the modus operating or working of merchants/service providers and the liability for any changes, deficiencies related to the service provided by the service providers. That the OP is a platform with the domain name and URL of www.policybazaar.com. and does not occur any liability on the conduct of a third party/service provider. It is further admitted that the complainant got his i20 vehicle car inured with the OP number 2 and 3 directly by himself without any interference or assistance from the OP. As such it is averred that OPs number 2 and 3 are liable to pay the claim, if any.  It is averred further that upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant for rejection of his claim by the insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured for the repair of his vehicle, the OP inquired the matter internally with the OP number 2 and 3 and it was found that the claim of the complainant under the insurance policy issued by the OP number 2 and 3 for repair of his vehicle has been rejected by the insurer i.e. OP number 2 and 3, as the complainant had provided incorrect details of ‘No Claim Bonus” to the OPs number 2 and 3, as such, OPs number 2 and 3 rejected the claim of the complainant, which was intimated to the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had taken the policy in question from the website of the OP. However, the complainant directly booked the policy without any assistance from the OP. It is stated that the OP has no knowledge about any accident occurred on the vehicle of the complainant as the complainant did not lodge any claim with the OP for any claim. It is stated that OP number 1 has no knowledge about any claim whatsoever and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.             In reply filed by Ops number 2 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against Ops number 2 and 3, that in the present case, complicated questions of law and facts are involved and the same cannot be decided in summary proceedings and stated that the complaint should be dismissed. On merits,  it is stated that the car in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. DO-II, 16/20, WEA, First Floor, Near Shastri Park, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi w.e.f. 31.7.2017 to 30.7.2018 for Rs.4,00,000/-. It is  admitted that the vehicle suffered accident on 20.6.2018 and the OP appointed Shri Karan K Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessing the final loss, who  after inspection of the vehicle in question assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.34,902/- after deducting Rs.1000/-  regarding excess clause and Rs.300/- as salvage value of damaged parts and submitted his report dated 7.7.2018 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  Further case of the OPs is that the complainant in the proposal form declared wrong declaration regarding ‘No Claim Bonus’ to the extent of 50%, which was allowed by the OPs. The complainant insured his vehicle after claiming 50% NCB, which he was not entitled as in the expiring policy issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the NCB was allowed to the extent of 20% only and the complainant was entitled for 25% NCB only meaning thereby the complainant has concealed the facts to take the undue monetary benefit on the policy for which is was not entitled. It is further averred that Patiala office of the Insurance Company sent a registered letter dated 16.7.2018 to the insured and requested him to submit proof for availing 50% NCB to substantiate his claim within 15 days, otherwise the company would be left with no other alternative but to deal the claim on merits, as such, it is stated that the complainant is not entitled for any claim from the OPs. Lastly, OPs number 2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 2 and 3  has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 to Ex.OP2&3/9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased the insurance policy for his i20 car bearing registration number PB-13-AC-9111 for the period from 31.7.2017 to 30.7.2018  through OP number 1 from OPs number 2 and 3 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.8391/-, copy of which on record is Ex.C-1. It is also not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy and intimation of which was received by OPs number 2 and 3 and thereafter OPs number 2 and 3 appointed Shri Karan K Singh, Sruveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.34,902/- vide his report dated 7.7.2018, copy of which on record is Ex.OP2&3/6. In the present case,  OPs number 2 and 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant wrongly claimed 50% ‘No Claim Bonus’ at the time of getting the insurance policy, whereas he was entitled for only 25% of the ‘No Claim Bonus’ as is evident from the copy of letter Ex.OP2&3/7. 

7.             Ex.C-3 is the copy of legal notice dated 04.07.2019 served upon the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, whereby he requested the insurance company to pay the claim amount of Rs.36,526/- spent on the repairs of the car in question. Ex.C-5 is the copy of invoice showing spending of an amount of Rs.36,526/- on the repair of the car in question.  All this evidence is duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-6. On the other hand, refusal of the claim by the OP number 2 and 3 is only on the ground of wrong claiming of the NCB by the complainant.  Ex.OP2&3/8 is the copy of letter dated 16.07.2018 sent to the complainant, whereby he was called upon to submit proof for claiming 50% NCB to substantiate his claim within 15 days, but he did not produce any such document.  All this evidence is duly supported by the affidavit of Shri Mukesh Malhotra Ex.OP2&3/9. Now, the fact remains that the complainant has wrongly claimed the NCB at the time of getting the insurance policy.  

8.             Now the fact remains that the car in question was insured with the OPs number 2 and 3 and during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the complainant suffered accident and spent an amount of Rs.36,526/- as mentioned above on the repairs of the car. But the surveyor of the OP vide his report Ex.OP2&3/6 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.34902/-. As such,  we will go with the final survey report Ex.OP2&3/6.

9.             Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in National Insurance Company Limited versus Jagir Kaur, Revision Petition No.330 of 2013 (Appeal No.837 of 2008) decided on 19.2.2016, wherein in the similar circumstances of the case where 20% NCB was claimed by the complainant wrongly, the Hon’ble National Commission directed the insurance company to settle the claim by awarding 75% of the amount assessed in the survey report.  We may mention that in the present case, the surveyor Shri Karan K Singh vide its report dated 07.07.2018 Ex.OP2&3/6 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.34,902/-.  The present case comes to the domain  of the citation of the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein 75% claim has been ordered to be paid by the insurance company to the complainant.  Now, we are of the considered opinion that we will go with this decision of the Hon’ble National Commission.  Now, coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  If we calculate the claim payable in view of the above methodology, it comes to Rs.26,177/- (Rs.34902x75/100).  Now, we are of the definite opinion that the complainant is entitled to the claim of Rs.26,177/- as discussed above.

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.26,177/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.09.2019 till its realisation in full. We further direct them to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of Rs.6000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by OPs within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

11.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.              

                        Pronounced.

 

                March 19, 2024.

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member                       Member                  President