Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/75/2023

NEELAM JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA

03 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/75/2023
Date of Institution	:	15.2.2023
Date of Decision	:	3/11 /2023

 

Mrs. Neelam Jain W/o Satish Kumar Jain 307/A, Sector 32A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 58-60, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.       Sh. Mandeep Singh representative of reliance general insurance company Ltd. SCO 58-60, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party (ies)

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

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vijay  Kumar,  Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate alongwith Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is registered owner of Ford car bearing registration No.CH01BJ6454 which was got insured by the complainant with  OP No.1 vide policy certificate  Annexure C-1 (hereinafter to be referred as subject policy), which was valid w.e.f. 3.10.2020 to 2.10.2021. However, during the currency of  subject policy, the car met with an accident on 22.4.2021  and immediately information about the accident was given to the OP No.1. Thereafter, the wreckage of the car was towed to workshop of Soluja Ford, Chandigarh by paying Rs.13,000/- and  thereafter the claim was lodged with the OPs by the complainant by submitting all documents required by OP No.1 for the settlement of the claim.  The OP No.1 had asked the complainant to contact surveyor Jatinder Dhiman  for survey etc.  Thereafter the surveyor after visiting  Saluja Ford, Chandigarh had opined that the subject car is a total loss case and intimation qua the same was given to OP No.1. Thereafter the M/s Saluja Ford asked the complainant to take away the wreckage of the subject car on payment of Rs.10,000/- and after making the said payment to the said repairer the wreckage was shifted to Sector 70 Mohali on payment of Rs.1300/- and information qua the same was also given to the OP No.1. Later on OP No.2 had given option to the complainant if she wants to retain the wreckage of the subject car and on this  the complainant informed OP No.2 that she can retain the wreckage on estimated value of Rs.80,000-85,000/-. However, OP No.2  later on intimated the complainant that the price quoted by her has not been approved by OP No.1 being not interested to surrender the left over remains of the subject car at such price.  Thereafter the complainant was  asked to surrender registration certificate of car and deposit clearance of RC office with OPs and on this the complainant handed over the said documents to the OP No.1 vide receipt Annexure C-2 and also submitted photo of left over remains of the subject car Annexure C-3. On 7.11.2022 the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 and she was assured that the claim will be settled and shall be paid to the complainant as and when the same is cleared by OP No.1. However, till date OPs have failed to intimate about the clearance of the claim, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency    in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment  of facts, non-joinder/misjoiner of necessary parties as the financer has not been impleaded as party  and further that the claim of the complainant is premature and the complaint has been filed without any cause of action. On merits it is admitted that the subject car was insured with the OP No.1 and the subject policy was valid at the relevant time. It is further admitted that on receipt of information qua the accident surveyor was appointed by the answering OPs who examined the subject car and thereafter the complainant was asked to submit certain documents which were required  for the processing of the claim. However, as the complainant has failed to submit the said documents the claim of the complainant was only closed. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  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, including the written arguments of complainant.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is registered owner of the subject car which was got insured by the complainant from OPs vide policy certificate Annexure C-1 valid w.e.f. 3.10.2020 to 2.10.2021, and  the  subject car met with an accident and immediately information regarding the same was given to the OPs, who deputed the surveyor who  inspected the subject car and submitted his survey report Exhibit OP5, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OPs are unjustified in closing the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the OPs are justified in closing the claim of the complainant  on account of non-submission of  documents required for the settlement of the claim of the complainant and the complaint being premature is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, Exhibit OP-4 the letter dated 10.1.2022 in respect of closure of the claim of the complainant, Exhibit OP5 survey report and the same are required to be scanned carefully to determine the real controversy between the parties.
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-1 the policy document,  clearly indicates that  the subject car was insured with OP No.1 and the subject policy was valid w.e.f. 3.10.2020 to 2.10.2021. Annexure C-3(colly)  are the photographs of the subject car  indicating the subject car was badly damaged in the accident. Exhibit OP5 is the surveyor report, which clearly indicates that the surveyor has assessed the loss of the subject car and had come to the conclusion after compulsory deductions that the net amount payable by the OP insurance  is to the tune of Rs.4,25,110.433. Annexure Exhibit OP4 is the closure letter through which the complainant was intimated by the OPNo.1 that due to non-submission of the documents her claim  was closed.
   4. As per the defence of the OPs, in fact the claim of the complainant was closed for want of non-submission of the documents which were asked by the OPs from the complainant.  However, this defence of the OPs stands falsified from  letter Annexure C-2 which clearly indicates that the complainant had already submitted the required documents to the OP No.1 and last document which was asked by the OP is  RC cancellation report of the subject car and the same was also submitted by the complainant with the OP No.1 by enclosing the same with the letter Annexure C-2 dated 18.7.2022.
   5. Moreover, when the surveyor deputed by the OP insurance company had already submitted his report  Exhibit OP5  and has assessed the total net amount payable after compulsory deduction by the OP insurance company to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,25,110.43 rounded off to 4,25,111/- and since the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant till date, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount as assessed by the surveyor vide survey report Exhibit OP5 as per law  already settled. However it is made clear that the complainant shall not make any claim for salvage of the subject car.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹ 4,25,111/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing the claim  i.e. 10.1.2022 till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- 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 OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 3/11/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member