STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Gurmail Kaur wife of Sh. Gurcharan Singh r/o H.No.2555, Mariwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                                                             ... Appellant.

                                                 Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.147-148, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager

                                                                                ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 01.08.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.245/2022.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Devinder Kumar,Advocate for the appellant.

                         S/Sh.Arun Kumar & Sh.Varun  Bhardwaj, Advocates for the respondent.  .

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.08.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint in the following terms;

“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 the IDV of ₹1,50,000/- (less excess clause, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.6.2022 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

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

2.       Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that she is the registered owner of a TATA ACE BS-III  tempo bearing registration No.CH-01-TA 6706  which was purchased by her vide invoice dated 25.3.2013 (Annexure C-1) to earn her and her family’s livelihood.  The said tempo was being driven by her husband, Gurcharan Singh and the same was got insured by the complainant from the Opposite Party  vide policy (Annexure C-2) valid w.e.f. 29.3.2019 to 28.3.2020 by paying premium of ₹17,449/- with insured declared value (IDV) of ₹1,50,000/-. On the evening of 10.12.2019, the   said tempo was parked outside the parking of house of the complainant at Manimajra, Chandigarh however, on the next day morning i.e. 11.12.2019, when the complainant came outside her house, she found the subject tempo stolen.  Immediately her husband reported the matter to the police at Police Station, Manimajra which resulted in recording General Diary Details(Annexure C-3). Later on, FIR (Annexure C-4) was also registered by the police under Section 379 IPC.  Immediately, information was given to the Opposite Party  about the theft of the subject tempo and surveyor was deputed by the OP who visited the spot and asked the complainant to submit certain documents and accordingly the complainant submitted all the documents (Annexure C-6 to C-11) to the investigator.  However, despite submission of all the documents, as asked by the investigator of the OP, it did not settle the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.  

 3.             Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Party/respondent appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint.     In its written version, it was inter-alia stated that there was delay in lodging FIR with the police after the alleged theft and that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle was left unattended without proper precautions. It was further stated  that the complainant was asked to submit certain documents to fulfill formalities, which were not fulfilled by her and the claim of the complainant was accordingly repudiated.  Certain preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint in the Consumer Commission were raised and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the parties, the Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed   the complaint, as indicated  in the opening para of this order. 

5.              Still dissatisfied,   the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/complainant for modification of the impugned order by granting interest @18% p.a. on the IDV amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of loss till realization.  

6.                  We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.                  In the appeal, the  main ground taken by the appellant is that the Ld. Lower Commission has granted interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 16.06.2022 whereas it should have been granted from the date of loss i.e. 11.12.2019 @ 18% p.a. on the IDV of the vehicle in question.  It is contended that theft of the vehicle was reported to the police on 11.12.2019 and further on intimation to the insurance company, the investigator collected the required information and despite receiving all necessary documents, the respondent did not send any intimation about the fate of her claim and as such, the appellant has to file a consumer complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission. It is further contended that as per regulations issued by IRDA, the claims made under the insurance policies are ordinarily to be settled within one month of the submission of the claim  but in the present  case the claim was not settled till filing of the complaint i.e. 28.2.2022.  It is further contended that on receipt of the notice of the claim from the Ld. Lower Commission, the respondent placed on record letter dated 16.06.2022 showing repudiation of the claim but without bringing on record any evidence about sending the same to the appellant by registered post.

 8..            In the repudiation letter dated 16.06.2022 allegedly sent to the claimant through registered post, the only reason for repudiation of claim is that there was delay in lodging FIR for the theft of the tempo and the other ground taken by the insurance company is that the insured has not taken due care to safeguard the vehicle left it unattended.  These aspects have already been dealt with and decided  by the Ld. Lower Commission in favour of the appellant. There is no mention  in the repudiation letter regarding not submitting the required documents in time.  Documents Annexure C-6 to C-11 were submitted by the appellant as required by the insurance claims investigator Sh.Shubham Arora vide letter dated 2.2.2020.  Copy of the letter of indemnity was also one of the documents submitted by the appellant. It is on a non-judicial stamp paper worth  Rs.100/- which was purchased on 16.12.2020 and it is notarized of the same date. Thus, the documents must have been submitted by the complainant to the investigator after 16.12.2020. 

 9.              The appellant has claimed interest @ 18% on the IDV amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of loss i.e. 11.12.2019.  The Supreme Court of India in the case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M.K.J Corporation (Appeal (Civil) 6075-6076 of 1995  decided on 21.08.1996 observed that a reasonable time of two months would be justified for the insurance company to take decision whether claim requires to be settled or rejected in  accordance with the policy. The operative part of the judgment reads as under ;

 “From the record, it would be clear that the claim was made for the first time on November 13, 1989. Thereafter, all the particulars were furnished by the insured-respondent in August 1990. Thereon, the surveyor inspected and submitted his report on October 30, 1990. Thereafter, the Insurance company is required to take a decision. Admittedly, 5 months have elapsed for taking decision to reject the claims. We think that a reasonable time of two months would be justified for them to take decision whether claim requires to be settled or rejected in accordance with the policy. Therefore, two months would be computed from October 30, 1990. Accordingly we give the benefit of the time taken to decide the claim up to December 31, 1990. The appellant-Insurer is liable to pay interest from January 1, 1991 till date of payment.”

10.             After giving the benefit of two months from 16.12.2020 to decide the claim, the insurance company was required to decide the claim by 16.02.2021, however, the Ld. Lower Commission has granted interest @9% p.a. on the IDV of the vehicle from the date of repudiation i.e. 16.06.2022 till realization of the same. We are of the view that ends of justice would meet  if we award interest after 16.02.2021 i.e. from 1.3.2021 till realization. We order accordingly.

11.           In view of the above discussion,   the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that interest @ 9% p.a. on the IDV of Rs.1,50,000/- shall  be calculated from 1.3.2021 instead of 16.6.2022 as awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission. The other part of the impugned order shall remain intact. 

12.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.