BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.386 of 2022
Date of Instt. 14.10.2022
Date of Decision: 12.04.2024
V. K. Valves Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, C-106, Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative D-4, 4th Floor, City Centre, Jalandhar.
2. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative Corporate Office Vishranthi Mela Ram Towers No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai Registered Office 21, Patullos Road, Chennai.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Puneet Sareen, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant through its director Mr. Varun Jain, wherein it is alleged that the OPs are involved in the business of providing insurance policy to general public at large and proclaim to provide good and hassle free insurance services. The complainant is owner of four wheeler bearing registration no.PB08-CX-1947 make Mercedes Benz, ML250CDI having engine no.230766, chassis no.M004750, year of manufacture 2014. Coming under the allurement of OPs of providing adequate insurance services, complainant had got its above mentioned four wheeler insured from OPs vide policy no.D002673174 (policy issued vide invoice no. 10004416041 which was valid from 30.11.2018 (00:01:00) to 29.11.2019 (23:59:00). Thereafter complainant had renewed the insurance policy vide policy no.VPC1254812000100 (policy issued from 00:00:00 hours on 05.12.2019 to midnight of 04.12.2020. The complainant had paid total premium of Rs.1,15,742.66/- to opposite parties and the Insured Declared Value (IDV) for the vehicle insured was Rs.29,52,450/- and for the loss of baggage was Rs.12,500/-. Unfortunately, above mentioned car of complainant met with an accident on (12.12.2019 at about 7:00 PM with a trolley at Focal Point near Electricity Station, Jalandhar. Since the damage of the vehicle was to the extent that it was not in a condition to drive, the same was towed by B.S. Brake down, bring pind near Joshi Auto Showroom, Jalandhar from Jalandhar focal point and was sent to Joshi Autos Ludhiana for its repair. An estimation of about Rs.43,38,554.56/- was raised by Joshi Autos Ludhiana for repair of vehicle of complainant which was also sent to opposite parties for approval. Thereafter the surveyor of OPs had contacted the complainant for providing all the relevant documents of insurance for approval of the insurance claim. Accordingly, complainant had supplied the copy of certificate of registration of vehicle no.PB08-CX-1947 valid driving license of Sh. Vikas Jain son of Sh. Ramesh Jain, who is also Joint Managing Director of complainant, copy of the toll receipt dated 01.12.2019, copy of the receipt of Rs.3,000/- issued by B.S. Brake Down for towing of the vehicle which is already annexed and copies of the policies as mentioned above. Since, after the accident till today, complainant had been approaching OPs time and again for approving of the insurance claim which has not been cleared/approved so far. Sometimes, representatives of OPs inform complainant that the vehicle is in total loss and sometimes they say that there is a gap in reissuance/renew of policy as previous policy was valid till 29.11.2019 and thereafter the policy was renewed on 05.12.2019, as such there is a contradiction in their own stand. The representatives of OPs are looking for lame excuses for declining the insurance claim. Whereas as a matter of fact, the vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 12.12.2019 on which, it was fully insured and even the certificate of insurance and policy schedule was also issued by OPs alongwith the claims guide for preferring the claim for the vehicle loss or damage. Even the vehicle of complainant was inspected on 04.12.2019 at 11:25 AM by Mr. Kuljinder, Officer/Agent of Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd., Jalandhar vide insurer Ref no. R/4358, Ref No.PI11978594, vide which, the vehicle of complainant was found safe and intact. The above mentioned acts and conduct of OPs by not replying to the requests of complainant to clear the insurance claim for its insured vehicle is causing mental agony, pain, discomfort to complainant. The OPs are harassing the complainant for the reason known best to them and are providing deficient services against their promises of providing best insurance services in the market. Besides this OPs have also indulged in unfair trade practices. The complainant had also got issued a legal notice dated 26-05-2020 to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to settle the insurance claim raised by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant on account of mental torture, harassment and agony caused by the OP and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses and any other relief which this Commission deems fit be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. The counsel for the OPs/Petitioners filed a Revision Petition bearing No.52 of 2023 before the Hon’ble State Commission and the same was allowed with the condition to address oral arguments only in support of their contentions.
4. In order to prove his respective versions, the counsel for the complainant has produced on the file his respective evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. As per the order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 19.10.2023 the OP was allowed to argue orally as they were allowed to join the proceedings. The OP has submitted that the written statement filed by him in the previous complaint be also read allow with his oral arguments, but this contention is not tenable as as per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission dated 19.10.2023, they were allowed to address oral arguments only in support of their contentions, therefore, the written statement filed by the OP in the previous complaint cannot be considered.
7. The counsel for the OP has raised the objection that the present complaint is not maintainable as earlier also on the same ground the complaint was filed which was withdrawn later on, but this contention is not tenable. The original file of the previous complaint has also been summoned. Perusal of that complaint shows that the counsel for the complainant withdrew the complaint due to some technical defects in the complaint. Considering the request of the counsel for the complainant, the permission was granted to the complainant to file the fresh complaint on same cause of action. Earlier the complaint was filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2020 and the Act of 2019 was applicable, therefore, that complaint was withdrawn due to this technical defect. Since, permission was granted, therefore, the present complaint is maintainable.
8. Ex.C-5 proves that the complainant is owner of the vehicle Mercedes. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 proves that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy from the OP against the payment of premium. The insurance was valid upto 04.12.2020. The complainant has alleged that his car met with an accident on 13.12.2019. The complainant has proved on record Ex.C-6 the receipt showing that the vehicle was taken from Jalandhar Focal Point to Ludhiana Joshi Auto for repair. The complainant made the payment of Rs.3000/- for this purpose. Ex.C-7 is the repair estimate raised by the Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. showing the estimation of Rs.43,38,554.56 for repair of the vehicle.
9. The OP has submitted that in order to assess the loss, the surveyor was appointed, who inspected the vehicle and took the photographs for the investigation and scrutiny. The vehicle had already been in accident prior to the policy inception and different vehicle was produced at the time of policy inception for inspection, therefore, the claim was repudiated.
10. The complainant has proved primary/preliminary estimate Ex.C-8. The contention of the OP is that since there was a mis-representation of the fact, therefore, the claim was never entertained. But there is no document on the file to prove that the claim was not entertained due to mis-representation of the facts, however, the fact remains that the claim was never settled. Since, this fact has been admitted that the complainant intimated the claim to the OP on 23.12.2019, but as per submission of the OP, the claim was not settled because of mis-representation of facts. In such circumstances, the OP is directed to settle the insurance claim raised by the complainant on 23.12.2019, if any document, bill or anything else is required, the same can be demanded from the complainant. The complainant is further directed to furnish all the documents required for the settlement of the claim to the OP immediately. The OPs are further directed to settle the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of order or the receipt of the documents and bill etc., if any, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
12.04.2024 Member President
