Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he insured his vehicle Maruti Swift Car VXI, model 2010 chassis No.545945 bearing RC NO.CH-01-AE-0040 with Opposite Party No.3 through Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Further alleges that during the subsistence of the policy in question, the insured vehicle met with an accident. The accidental vehicle was brought to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who gave estimate of the repair to the extent of Rs.16,973/- and told that the insurance claim shall be paid by Opposite Party No.3. Thereafter, the complainant through his attorney lodged the claim for the insurance with Opposite Party No.3 through Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but till date the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and lingering on the matter on one pretext to another and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.16,973/- as insurance claim alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till its realization and also to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant and to pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation and also to pay any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were duly served, but none has come present on their behalf, hence Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that after the accident with the vehicle in question, no intimation was ever given to the Opposite Party No.3 and no claim was ever lodged with the Opposite Party No.3 and even no document was ever submitted to Opposite Party No.3 and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3. On merits, Opposite Party No.3 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, no evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 has been produced.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the written version filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 Insurance Company has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. Further contended that no such terms and conditions were ever conveyed or supplied to the complainant at the time of insurance of the cows and the alleged terms and conditions are not applicable on the case of complainant. Further contended the complainant has already supplied all the requisite documents with the Opposite Parties, but they are lingering on the matter on one pretext to another. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has specifically contended that due to non supply of the requisite documents, the claim of the complainant could not be settled.
9. Perusal of the record shows that to get the insurance claim, the complainant has made so many correspondence and also submitted all the requisite documents, but the Opposite Party No.3 in collusion with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the complainant has not supplied these documents to the Opposite Parties, then these documents could be obtained by the Opposite Parties itself at its own by taking some initiative, but they did not bother to do so and due to this reason, the claim of the complainant is lingering on from the last about 5 years due to the lapse on the part of Opposite Party No.3. Not only this, the Opposite Party No.3 has also even failed to produce any supporting affidavit on file of some authorised person to controvert the contention of the complainant which has gone unrebutted.
10. In such a situation the repudiation made by Opposite Party-Insurance Company regarding genuine claim of the complainant have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pasters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party-Insurance Company have wrongly and illegally not paid the claim of the complainant.
12. The complainant in his complaint has claimed the amount of Rs. 16,973/- on account of repair charges and also placed on record the bill Ex.C9 of Sandhu Automobiles Private Limited, and on the other hand, the Opposite Party No.3 has not denied this claim by filing any cogent and convincing evidence and hence, the claim of the complainant to that amount is genuine and we allow the claim of the complainant accordingly.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct Opposite Party No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.16,973/- (Rupees sixteen thousands nine hundred seventy three only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 09.11.2017 till its actual realization. All pending applications are disposed off accordingly. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.3 within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
14. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
