Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/336/2016

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarabjeet Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Arya, Adv.

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                          

Appeal No.	:	336 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	20.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.12.2016

 

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur – 302022 (Rajasthan) through Sh. Arvind Sharma, Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-8, EPIP, RIICO – Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at SCO No.178, Sector-38 C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

.…Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

1.   Sarabjeet Kaur aged 26 years wife of Late Sh. Parveen Kumar,

2.   Navjot Kaur minor daughter, aged 4 ½ years, of Late Sh. Parveen Kumar,

3.   Shiv Minor son, aged 1½  years, of Late Sh. Parveen Kumar,

Complainants No.2 and 3 being minors through their mother and natural guardian complainant No.1 Sarabjeet Kaur.

4.   Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (Mother of deceased Sh. Parveen Kumar) wife of Lt. Sh. Ramesh Kumar.

All residents of House No.179, Preet Nagar, Derabassi, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

…..Respondents/Complainants..

(Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Sh. Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for the appellants.

 

 

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                 This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.831 of 2015 was allowed  and the appellants/Opposite Parties were directed as under:-

“13.     Hence, on the above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct Opposite Parties to release the amount of the claim as per the survey report (Annexure R-1), by which the assessment of the loss is calculated as Rs.1,85,010/-. We further saddle Opposite Parties with the consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @ 12% p.a. on the entire amount that stands due against them, except for the cost of litigation.”

2.              The facts, in brief, are that Truck make SML ISUZU- Sartaj bearing Regn.No.PB-65Z-5429 owned by the deceased Sh. Parveen Kumar was duly insured with the Opposite Parties for the period from 18.8.2014 to 17.08.2015. Unfortunately, the aforesaid Truck met with an accident on 06.12.2014 and was badly damaged. In the said accident, Sh. Parveen Kumar also died and FIR was lodged with the Police Station Menathar, Moradabad (U.P). The Opposite Parties were duly informed about the accident and necessary claim was also lodged with them alongwith all the requisite documents. The complainants made numerous visits to the Opposite Parties for settlement of their claim, but they dilly-dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. The vehicle, in question, was got repaired from the authorized dealer                     who raised Invoice dated 23.5.2015 for Rs.3,98,722/- and also claimed parking charges from the date of invoice from the complainants. However, the claim was repudiated by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 02.06.2015. Alleging repudiation of claim as deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants filed the complaint before the Forum seeking various reliefs.

3.              The Opposite Parties, in their written version, while admitting the basic facts of the case, stated that there was delay of 52 days in intimation of the accident to the Opposite Parties. The alleged loss took place on 06.12.2014 and the claim was intimated on 27.01.2015 and thus, the complainants had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and on which account, the claim was not reimbursed. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.          The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through  the  evidence,  and  record  of  the  case,  the  Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

6.           Feeling aggrieved, the Opposite Parties have filed the instant appeal.

7.              We have heard the Counsel for the appellants on the application for condonation of delay as also in the main appeal, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

8.              It is evident on record that accident of the vehicle, in question, took place on 06.12.2014. In the said accident, the insured driver Sh. Parveen Kumar died on 07.12.2014 and extensive damage was caused to the vehicle. The accident occurred during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, which was effective from 18.08.2014 to 17.08.2015. The Surveyor appointed by the appellants assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,85,010/-. The appellants – Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 02.06.2015 on the ground that the accident took place on 06.12.2014 and the claim was intimated belatedly on 27.01.2015. It is evident on record that FIR about the  accident was lodged in Police Station Menathar, Moradabad (U.P.) on 07.12.2014 (Annexure C-7). The FIR was lodged in time. From the title of the complaint, it is evident that the deceased insured was 26 years old and he left behind his widow aged 26 years old, one daughter aged 4½ years old and son aged 1½ years old besides his widow mother. The Forum has rightly observed in its order that the family was in a great shock due to which, they could not inform the appellants immediately and rejection of the claim on account of delay in intimation was totally unjustified and unfair. The findings of the Forum, as contained in Paras 7 to 11, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“7.      After appraising the entire evidence and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the Opposite Parties are bound to settle the claim of the Complainants, as the vehicle was duly insured with them and the action of the Opposite Parties in refusing to pay the claim of the Complainants in respect of the aforesaid vehicle vide letter dated 02.06.2016, even after several requests made by them amounts to deficiency in service.

8.      At any rate, the Complainants are layman and not aware about the technicalities and procedure to approach the Opposite Parties for getting the relief of insurance immediately after the unfortunate death of Sh. Parveen Kumar. There is no doubt about the fact that the Complainants were in great shock after the death of Parveen Kumar and were busy in performing his last rites and other social obligations, due to which they could not inform the Opposite Parties immediately after the death of Sh. Parveen Kumar, who was the sole bread winner of the family.

9.     In the instant case, the incident took place on 06.12.2014 and FIR was lodged with the P.S. Menathar, Moradabad (U.P) on 07.12.2014. It is thus evident that the FIR was lodged on the next day without any delay. Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the Complainants by the Opposite Parties in toto on the ground that there had been a delay of 52 days in intimation regarding the incident to them, is totally unjust and unfair.

10.     This is an admitted fact that on the one hand, Opposite Parties had appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,85,010/-, but on the other hand they denied the claim of the Complainants on the vague ground of delayed intimation, notwithstanding the fact that the Complainants furnished all the documents to Opposite Parties which were asked by them. 

11.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that Opposite Parties have miserably failed in their duties towards the insured and the pain and loss that the Complainants have gone through is solely due to their negligent act. We feel that having created a shield for themselves in coining the lame excuse of delayed intimation also amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Our views also gather strength from the observations of the Hon’ble Justice RANJIT SINGH in Civil Writ Petition No.3996 of 2011 wherein it is held that Insurance companies are charging hefty premium for insuring the vehicles. Once the question of liability arises the companies resort to one technical objection and the other. These companies really chase people and literally promise everything at the time of selling policy. It is usual to see people struggle to run after Agents and Surveyors to get their rightful claims.  Such agents then look other way and make insurers to make rounds to company offices. Insurers are then made to approach the Courts and are even dragged to this Court on one technical plea or the other. No one really is made to read the terms while making him to sign on the printed forms for selling policies. This attitude must change.”

 

9.              The reasoning given by the Forum, in our opinion, is logical, convincing and correct.

10.            As regards reliance of appellants/Opposite Parties upon the judgments in Shriram General Insurnace Co. Ltd. Vs. Anand Singh, 2016 (2) CPR 423 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shravan Singh, 2016 (1) CPJ 450, the Forum has rightly observed that the judgments relied upon by the Opposite Parties (now appellants) relate to theft cases. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anand Singh’s case (supra), which relate to theft of vehicle, it was held that since the respondent/complainant did not give any explanation for the delay, that was a clear case of violation of Condition No.1 of the Insurance Contract. The second case tiled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shravan Singh’s case (supra), also related to theft of the vehicle.

11.            In the instant appeal, the claim was not pertaining to theft of the vehicle but to accident causing damage to the vehicle, in which the insured died. The circumstances prevailing in the instant case, as indicated in Para 8 above, themselves speak that the family of the deceased insured would not have been in a position to give intimation to the Insurance Company immediately. We are in agreement with the observations of the Forum as contained in its order.

12.            No other point was raised by the Counsel for the appellants.

13.          In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order passed by the Forum is upheld.

15.            Since the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, as such, the application filed by the appellants for condonation of delay, aforesaid, is dismissed, having been rendered infructuous. The application stands disposed off, accordingly.

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

17.            File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

22.12.2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 Ad