DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 562 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 08.12.2011 Date of Decision : 31.10.2012 -------------------------------- Dinesh Nain son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of #277/29, Sector 2, Rohtak. ---Complainant V E R S U S Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 145-146, Top Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh. --- Opposite Party BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT Mrs.Madhu Mutneja Member SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Saurabh Dalal, Counsel for Complainant. None for Opposite Party. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the ground that the Complainant is an owner of a Ford Icon car (Model 2009) bearing Regn. No. HR-12-M-5052. Copy of registration certificate is annexed as Annexure C-7 and the copy of valid driving licence of the Complainant is annexed as Annexure C-6. Complainant claims that his vehicle met with an accident on 22/11/2010 and was badly damaged. The occurrence of this accident was reported to P.S. Butana and a Rapat Roznamcha No.17 was registered on the same day. The Complainant further claimed that he had subscribed for an insurance policy from the Agent of the Opposite Party on 07/10/2010 vide Cover Note No.110000615988 (Annexure C-1) and a Policy was raised bearing No. 2010702311001274 (Annexure C-2), valid upto 7/10/2011. The Complainant claims that the Opposite Party issued the policy to him after thorough investigation and inquiry about the previous policy issued by H.D.F.C. Ergo Co. (Annexure C-5), which was valid at the time when the fresh policy was issued. The happening of the accident was also intimated to the Opposite Party on the same day of its happening. The Complainant has also claimed that the Opposite Party tried to delay the claim of the Complainant by asking for the previous year’s insurance policy, copy of which was once again supplied to the Opposite Party, which is admitted by them in their final notice Annexure C-3. The Complainant claims that through this letter (Annexure C-3), the Opposite Party claimed that the previous policy neither existed in the records of the insurer, against the Complainant’s name, or for the damaged vehicle. Complainant was given 7 days time to clear his stand, failing which the claim of the Complainant could be dismissed. The Complainant thereafter, checked the status of his claim on the web site of the Opposite Party, which showed that the claim has been closed and repudiated. Copy of this is annexed as Annexure C-4. The Complainant claims that the claim lodged with the Opposite Party was with regard to the loss suffered by him during the currency of the present policy issued by the Opposite Party and that their act of denying him his genuine claim on the basis of frivolous grounds is an act of deficiency in service. The Complainant claims that he in his right earnest had not acted in any manner that could disqualify him from his genuine claim. Complainant further claims that he had to suffer on account of money as well as time as the Opposite Party’s office is 250 Kms away from his place of residence and that he had to make repeated visits to the office of the Opposite Party to pursue his claim with them. The Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party has sought the relief of:- a] Remittance of his total claim of Rs.4.80 lacs along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident; b] Rs.1.00 lac as compensation on account of monetary loss, mental harassment due to deficiency in rendering service; c] Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; d] And such other amount in lieu of time and money spent in pursuing legal remedies; The complaint of the complainants is duly verified and is supported by his short affidavit. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case. 3. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that all the allegations of the Complainant contained in the complaint except for those which are specifically admitted herein, are denied. The Opposite Party claims that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the Complainant has approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts. The Opposite Party claims that the present complaint deserves dismissal u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the same has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the answering Opposite Party. It is further claimed that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint, as the issues raised through it, involve questions of facts as well as law, requiring deposition of detailed evidence, and the same can be appropriately done only by a Civil Court. Finally, the Opposite Party has also taken the preliminary objection of the lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in deciding the present, as the Complainant is a resident of Rohtak and had purchased the insurance policy from Karnal. Even the place of accident is under the jurisdiction of Bhutana Police Station, thus, citing the authoritative judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Sonic Surgical V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2010 (1) RCR (Civil). On merits, the Opposite Party has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Opposite Party has cited the reason of the repudiation of the claim on the ground that when the vehicle was got purchased by the Complainant and was registered on 25/9/2009 and remained without an insurance cover, as the previous policy was subscribed by the Complainant on 07/10/2009 and furthermore, the Opposite Party vide its letter dated 01/02/2011 requested the Complainant to provide the original previous policy obtained from H.D.F.C. Ergo for the period 7/10/2009 to 06/10/2010, but the Complainant instead supplied another photo copy of the said Policy without any forwarding letter. Opposite Party claims that on verifying this fact from H.D.F.C. Ergo Insurance Company, came to know that the policy does not exist in the name of the Complainant or against the damaged vehicle. Thus, citing breach of insurance policy conditions, the Complainant was called upon to explain that why his insurance be not repudiated. A period of seven days was offered to the Complainant for submission of reply to the aforesaid communication. The Complainant failed to submit any explanation, but preferred to fie the present false complaint against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has also cited the reason of the Complainant having claimed a no claim bonus of Rs.3,063/- on the basis of previous insurance policy, but as the previous policy has been found to be fake, the claim of no claim bonus is indicative of a fraud having been committed by the Complainant with the Opposite Party. Hence, the claim of the Complainant was rejected as the information given by the Complainant was found to be false. The Opposite Party further contested the claim of relief sought by the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant has not lodged the insurance claim of Rs.4 lacs and at the same time the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation of Rs.1.00 lac or any other amount. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Party is duly verified but not supported by any affidavit. 4. As the Opposite Party failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 12/10/2012, the arguments of the counsel for the Complainant were heard. Hence, in the absence of the Opposite Party, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 12/10/2012. 5. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the Complainant, we have come to the following conclusions. 6. Before going into the merits of the complaint, it would be just to deal with the objection of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as the Opposite Party has raised a preliminary objection to this effect. No doubt the Complainant is a resident of Rohtak and the proposal-cum-cover note of the insurance policy of the Opposite Party was subscribed at Karnal; at the same time, the accident of the vehicle in question had occurred at Bhutana, thus, the jurisdiction of this Forum is claimed to be ousted as no cause of action has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. We are of the concerted view that no doubt that the present complaint attracts multiple jurisdictions, but as the last communication on the basis of which the present complaint has been filed, was sent to the Complainant from the Chandigarh Regional Office of the Opposite Party. Thus, the present complaint rightly attracts the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 7. While going through the present complaint and comparing the mentioned facts from the Annexures, it is established that the Complainant is a bonafide owner of vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-12-M-5052 and also carries a valid driving licence, valid upto 19/1/2026. The Complainant’s car met with an accident and a claim was duly lodged with the Opposite Party, as the happening of the accident on 22/11/2010 was during the currency of the insurance policy [Annexure C-2], valid from 08/10/2010 to 07/10/2011, of the Opposite Party. The claim of the Complainant was lodged with the Opposite Party and was under consideration is established from the letter of the Opposite Party (Annexure C-3), through which the Opposite Party demanded the original previous policy subscribed by the Complainant from H.D.F.C. Ergo Insurance Company. 8. The Complainant before filing the present complaint had tried to ascertain the status of his claim by accessing the web portal of the Opposite Party so as to track his claim and finding that the claim of Complainant has been repudiated has generated the cause of lodging the present complaint against the Opposite Party. 9. In the present complaint, the Opposite Party has tried to defend itself on the ground that the Complainant had given wrong information and also, a fake document was provided to claim a no claim bonus. The Opposite Party while investigating this fact from the previous insurer i.e. H.D.F.C. Ergo Insurance Co. came across the fact that the previous insurance policy did not exist in the name of the Complainant or was with regard to the vehicle of the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party has failed to bring on record any communication from their office written to HDFC Ergo Insurance Co. on the caption subject, nor there is any document to substantiate that the previous insurer HDFC Ergo had intimated the Opposite Party about the non- existence of the facts of the previous policy, as claimed by the Complainant. In these circumstances, the version/ reply of the Opposite Party, is totally hollow and without any basis. Even the reply/ version of the Opposite Party is not supported by any affidavit that could fortify the version of the Opposite Party. Hence, the version of the Opposite Party in this regard cannot be believed. 10. It is also noticed that the Opposite Party has raised objections with regard to the Complainant having availed a no claim bonus of Rs.3,063/- on the basis of previous policy and had also provided the Opposite Party with a copy of the previous insurance policy subscribed by him. It is very much clear that the answering Opposite Party did not follow the prescribed procedure as per G.R. 27 of Indian Motor Tariff, which mandates that in case a no claim bonus is claimed on the basis of a previous policy, the insurer is duty bound to write to the previous insurer within twenty days of the offering of the policy so as to ascertain the fact mentioned for the claim of no claim bonus. The entire G.R. 27 (f) is being reproduced hereunder: - “G.R.27 (f) In the event of the insured, transferring his insurance from one insurer to another insurer, the transferee insurer may allow the same rate of NCB which the insured would have received from the previous insurer. Evidence of the insured’s NCB entitlement either in the form of a renewal notice or a letter confirming the NCB entitlement from the previous insurer will be required for this purpose. Where the insured is unable to produce such evidence of NCB entitlement from the previous insurer, the claimed NCB may be permitted after obtaining from the insured a declaration as per the following wording:- “I/we declare that the rate of NCB claimed by me/ us is correct and that no claim as arisen in the expiring policy period (copy of the policy enclosed). I/we further undertake that if this declaration is found to be incorrect, all benefits under the Policy in respect of Section I of the Policy will stand forfeited.” Notwithstanding the above declaration, the insurer allowing the NCB will be obliged to write to the policy issuing office of the previous insurer by recorded delivery calling for confirmation of the entitlement and rate of N.C.B. for the particular insured and the previous insurer shall be obliged to provide the information sought within 30 days of receipt of the letter of enquiry failing which the matter will be treated as a breach of Tariff on the part of the previous insurer. Failure of the insurer granting the NCB to write to the previous insurer within 21 days after granting the cover will also constitute a breach of the Tariff.” In the present matter, the Opposite Party has itself failed to prove that it has followed the mandated procedure as per the GR-27 (f). Hence the opposite party itself has breached the provisions of the Indian Motor Tariff. However, the declaration clause of the Proposal cum Cover Note (Annexure c-1) is found blank and is also not signed by the Proposer. Hence the allegations of the opposite party about the N.C.B. claim are found false. Thus the objection of the opposite party mentioned in para 11 of its version are found hollow, and deserved to be ignored. 11. The opposite party has also failed to bring on record the surveyor’s report so as to rebut the claim of the complainant for the settlement of his claim on total loss basis. More so, the copy of the Consent Letter in the shape of an affidavit of the complainant wherein he had consented for settlement of his claim on Net of Salvage/Cash Loss basis for Rs.3,75,000, was tendered in this forum as an additional evidence. The opposite party was afforded two opportunities to rebut this document. As this document claims that the claim has been worked out and he accepts the same as full and final settlement, we are of the view that in the absence of any rebuttal to this document, the claim of the complainant deserves to succeed against the opposite party. 12. In the light of above observations, we are of the view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed, to:- [a] To pay Rs.3.75.000/- i.e. the claim amount consented on net of salvage/ cash loss basis by the complainant ; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 13. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 12 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the 16.12.2010 i.e. the date of Consent Letter, of the complainant, till it is paid. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 31st October, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
C.C. No. 562 of 2011 Present: None. --- As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been ALLOWED against the Opposite Party. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 31.10.2012 President Member Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
