Haryana

Karnal

CC/522/2022

Vishal Kundi - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kundi

29 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 522 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.06.09.2022

                                                      Date of Decision: 29.01.2024

 

1. Vishal Kundi son of late Shri Amrit Lal Kundi.
2. Sarika Kundi wife of Vishal Kundi
3. Medhansh Kundi son of Vishal Kundi

All residents of 21-L, Model Town, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. SBI General Insurance Company 388-389, 1^st floor, old Mughal Canal Road, Karnal, Haryana, 132001, through its Manager/MD.
2. SBI General Insurance Company, 9^th floor, A &B Wing, Fulcrum Building, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400099, through its M.D.
3. Policy Bazar, plot no.119, sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 through its M.D.
4. Air Canada, III, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandi Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its M.D.

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:  Shri N.S. Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2.

                    Shri G.S. Khillan, counsel for the OP no.3.

                    Shri Akash Chawla, counsel for the OP no.4.

 

                    (Dr.Suman Singh, Member)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainants planned a trip to visit Canada from 25^th May, 2022 to 28^th June, 2022. They booked their return flight with OP no.4 and got their trip insured from OP no.1 through OP no.2. The detailed itinerary was as follows-

Date	Flight	From	To
26.05.2022	Swiss air	New Delhi	Zurich
26.05.2022	Swiss air	Zurich	Montreal
26.05.2022	Air Canada	Montreal	Moncton
28.06.2022	Air Canada	Moncton	Montreal
26.05.2022	Air Canada	Montreal	New Delhi

 

The complainants visited the website of the OP no.3 and as per information available on the website it was amply clear that the international travel policies available with them provide compensation in case of trip delay among other benefits. Complainants compared various travel insurance policies and policy offered by the OP no.1 was offering the best coverage in case of any loss. Moreover, the name of the SBI Group was also the most trustworthy and renowned one, so the complainants decided to purchase their travel insurance from them. The policy covered international travel and offered various benefits such as medical insurance, baggage loss, trip delay and trip cancellation. The complainants purchased individual travel insurance policies through OP no.2 from OP no.1 which were valid for the duration of 25.05.2022 to 29.06.2022. The detailed amount paid by the complainant for their insurance policy alongwith policy number is as follows:-

Name	Policy number	Amount paid
Vishal Kundi	POTBHI00100001690	Rs.4124/-
Sarika Kundi	POTBHI00100001691	Rs.4124/-
Medhansh Kundi	POTBHI00100001692	Rs.3350/-

 

The trip of the complainant was going smoothly till 28.06.2022 when they were scheduled to start their return journey. The flight from Moncton to Montreal was cancelled by the airline without any prior intimation and the complainants learnt about it only after they reached the airport to board the plane. The complainant faced grave hardship as they had no further arrangements to stay in the foreign country and were left with very little financial means to make arrangements for their unexpected extended stay. The complainant no.1 is a practicing Advocate and he had to attend court cases which were fixed from 1^st July onwards. The complainant no.2 had to rejoin her job and complainant no.3 had to start his school. These facts were brought to the knowledge of the OP no.4 but they could not provide any confirmed tickets for the flight before 4^th July. Therefore, complainants had to reschedule their return journey as per the following itinerary-

Date	Flight	From	To
04.07.2022	Air Canada	Moncton	Toronto
04.07.2022	Air Canada	Toronto	New Delhi

 

The complainant requested the OP no.4 to provide them with the boarding and lodging for the entire duration of the delayed trip but the OP no.4 did not provide the hotel and food facility for more than one day. The complainants had to make their own arrangement of stay from 29^th June, 2022 to 4^th July, 2022. The complainant immediately informed the OP no.1 regarding the trip delay. They instructed the complainants to lodge the claim alongwith required documents within one month of coming back to India. Complainant reached India on 5^th July, 2022. They completed the entire claim forms and enclosed all the required documents and lodged the claim with the Op no.1 on 11.07.2022. The complainants are entitled to a total claim amount of USD 2000 individually, USD 6000 in total as their trip was delayed by six days. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complainants are entitled to USD 200 for every 12 hours of delay.
Therefore, they are entitled to USD 400 for each day with a maximum cap of USD 2000 or five days. The complainant kept following up the matter with the Op no.1 but they did not settle the claim. Lastly, complainant received a letter dated 10.08.2022 through which they were informed that their claim has been repudiated as the insurance policy covered only the flight delay from India and did not cover the return flight delay whereas it has been specifically mentioned  on the website of OP no.2 as well as on page no.3 of the policy document that the claimant will be entitled to a maximum sum of USD 2000 for the trip delay. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainants have suffered mentally and financially. Even the OP no.4 being an internationally reputed airline has failed to make proper arrangements for their flight operations. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the claim amount of USD 6000 (roughly equivalent to Rs.4,85,000/- in Indian Currency) to the complainant with interest as per policy document and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental tension and agony caused to them due to the act and omission of the OPs.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; limitation; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per claim documents submitted by the complainants, it is observed that complainants have booked their return flight from Moncton to Delhi via Montreal which was cancelled and rescheduled for 4^th July 2022 due to manpower Constrain and Covid-19 protocols. Complainants want to claim for Trip delay benefit. In reference to their details submitted, OPs company like to refer policy section A(ii) for travel support benefit of Trip Delay which states that “Subject to all other terms and conditions, if the aircrafts on which the insured person is booked to Travel from India is delayed beyond 12 hours then the original scheduled departure time, the insurer will pay US $ 200 for every 12 hours delay in excess of first 12 hours, subject to the maximum amount mentioned in the policy schedule. However, the insurer will not pay, (1) for any departure which is delayed as a result of the insured person or any other person who is to travel with him failing to check in correctly as required by the airlines. (2) For any delayed departure caused by strike  or industrial action known to exist or was anticipated at the time the trip was booked. (3) If the aircraft is taken out of service on the instructions of Civil Aviation Authority or similar authority.

The benefit does not cover the circumstances claimed for, as per terms and conditions of the policy, so the claim of complainant is not maintainable as Trip Delay and same was repudiated by the OPs, which was communicated to insured vide letter dated 10.08.2022. The policy is contractual in nature and the claims arising therein are subject to the terms and conditions forming part of the policy. The complainants have accepted the policy agreeing and being fully aware of such terms and conditions and executed the form. The complainants have not suffered any kind of loss due to OPs and they are not entitled for any kind of compensation. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version and stating therein that complainant had purchased three individual Travel Insurance Policies through the website of OP. The said insurance policies had been issued to the complainants by OPs no.1 and 2. Hence, OPs no.1 and 2 are liable for all the services mentioned in the insurance policy. The complainants alleged that the return flight from Moncton to Montreal scheduled for 28 June 2022 was cancelled by the airlines without any prior intimation and that the Trip Delay was covered under the travel insurance policies taken by the complainants. It is further stated that the complainant never approached the OP with respect to the policy claims. The complainant had reached out to the OPs’ extension only 29^th June, 2022. OPs tried to reach the complainant on call but he was unable to connect with the complainant on fall for two days. As per applicable insurance laws, the right to take the decision with respect to approving or rejecting or cancellation of the claim or reimbursement or availing of any service as stated in the terms of policy is that of the insurer that is OPs no.1 and 2 and that the OP no.3 is an insurance intermediary acting as a mere facilitator through its website, for providing insurance plans of various insurers in India. The complainant never paid any consideration to the OP. Therefore, relationship between consumer and service provider is non-existent between the complainant and the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.4 in its written version stated that the present complaint relates to a revocation of the claim by the insurance company and Air Canada has been unnecessarily made a party in the matter. The complainant’s case is that due to cancellation of the flight from Moncton to Montreal on June 28, 2022 he raised a claim against the OP no.1 which was repudiated. The complainant is seeking relief of payment of insurance against OP no.1. There is no specific claim against OP no.4.  The flight was cancelled on June 28, 2022 due to safety condition and paucity of staff owing to Covid restrictions in Canada. During the Covid restrictions India banned all international flights from March, 2020 and thereafter under the Bubble Agreement, restricted flights were operating under the bilateral agreements between two countries. The ban continued until March, 2022 with restricted flights under the Bubble Agreement due to SARS and Omicron Virus. Thereafter, at the end of March, 2022, Director General of Civil Aviation permitted limited number of commercial flights to operate to and fro. Thus, more of the international Airlines were operating on a weekly basis or bi-weekly basis with heavy passenger load. It is further stated that airlines were operating on limited number of staff as well due to covid restrictions imposed in countries including India and Canada. Under the DGCA guidelines even the airline crew were to undergo isolation which was finally relaxed only on June 8, 2022 with other restrictions in place on the basis of the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Despite the relaxation, airlines were operating on limited flights with scarce staff. Canada had its own strict Covid restrictions in place and was permitting limited number of airlines as well as passenger within Canadian borders. Any passengers who was traveling in such restricted times with strict covid protocol in place was fully aware of the consequences including sudden flight cancellation, government restrictions being imposed on a daily basis and changing scenario of Covid Sars as well as Omicron virus spread. The complainant was fully aware of the risks involved in the journey and therefore such times cannot be compared to normal flight day. It is further pleaded that the flight was cancelled due to Russsia Ukrain war. There is no fault on the part of Air Canada and complainant cannot seek any relief on the ground of cancellation of flights during the covid period. It is further stated that complainant has not disclosed the fact that he was provided a CAD 500 for food voucher and thereafter a claim of CAD 1071 and lateron CAD 1200 was raised of which the hotel stay was of CAD 753. Air Canada though not liable to pay any compensation released a further payment of Rs.74,175/- on September 20, 2022. Complainant is guilty of suppression of facts. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of complainant no.2 Ex.CW2/A, copies of airlines tickets Ex.C1, copy of policy bazaar extract regarding trip delay Ex.C2, copy of insurance policies of complainants Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, Cambridge dictionary meaning of word “Trip” Ex.C6, copies of repudiations letters Ex.C7 to Ex.C9, copy of insurance letter Air Canada Ex.C10, copy of local news extract Ex.C11, copies of bills Ex.C20, copy of email Air Canada complaint Ex.C21, copy of statement of account Ex.C22 and closed the evidence on 21.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the Op no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nishant Gera, Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of repudiation letter of policy no. POTBHI00100001690 Ex.R1, claim form of policy no.POTBHI00100001690 Ex.R2, copy of insurance policy No.POTBHI0010 0001690 Ex.R3, copy of repudiation letter of policy No.POTBHI00100001691 Ex.R4, claim form of policy No.POTBH I00100001691 Ex.R5, copy of insurance policy no.POTBHI 00100001691 Ex.R6, copy of repudiation letter of policy no. POTBHI 00100001692 Ex.R7, claim form of policy no.POTBHI00100001692 Ex.R8, copy of insurance policy no.POTBHI00100001692 Ex.R9 and closed the evidence on 04.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohit Kumar Ex.OP3/A, copy of board resolution Ex.OP3/1, copy of legal and Admin policies Ex.OP3/2, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP3/3, copy of claim rejection letter dated 10.08.2022 Ex.OP3/4 and closed the evidence on 01.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant no.1 is a practicing as an advocate and complainant no.2 is working as General Manager-workshop at Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. The complainants planned a trip to visit Canada from 25^th May, 2022 to 28^th June, 2022. They booked their return flight with OP No.4 and got their trip insured from OP No.1 through OP No.2. This insurance covers medical insurance, baggage loss, trip delay and trip cancellation. The flight from Moncton to Montreal was cancelled by the OP No.4 without any prior intimation and the complaints learnt about it only after they had reached the airport to board the plane. The complainant requested the OP No.4 to provide them with the boarding and lodging for the entire duration of the delayed trip but the OP no.4 did not provide the hotel and food facility for more than one day. A separate complaint in this regard was also lodged with OP No.4, copy of the same is Ex.C21. The complainant had to bear all the expenses from their own pocket and copies of the bills dated 28.06.2022 to 04.07.2022 are Ex.C12 to Ex.C20. He further argued that the complainants are entitled to a total claim amount of USD 2000 individually, USD 6000 in total as their trip was delayed by six days. After returning to India, complainant lodged a claim with the OPs no.1 and 2 and requested to pay the same but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly repudiated the claim of complainants vide letters dated 10.08.2022 on the ground that the policy covered only flight delay from India and did not cover the return flight delay. The said repudiation letter is illegal, null and void as the policy covered the entire trip from 25^th May, 2022 to 29^th June, 2022 for the region of USA and Canada and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainants has relied upon the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as M/s Taxco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. in civil appeal no.8249 of 2022 and Jacob Punnen and another Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in civil appeal no.6778 of 2013 decided on 09.012.2021.

11.           Learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainants have booked their return flight from Moncton to Delhi via Montreal which was cancelled and rescheduled for 4^th July 2022 due to manpower Constrains and Covid-19 protocols. Complainants want to claim for Trip delay benefit. As per policy section A(ii) for travel support benefit of Trip Delayed from India beyond 12 hours then the insurer will pay US $ 200 for every 12 hours delay in excess of first 12 hours, subject to the maximum amount mentioned in the policy schedule. The insurer will not pay, (1) for any departure which is delayed as a result of the insured person or any other person who is to travel with him failing to check in correctly as required by the airlines. (2) For any delayed departure caused by strike or industrial action known to exist or was anticipated at the time the trip was booked. (3) If the aircraft is taken out of service on the instructions of Civil Aviation Authority or similar authority.  So, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of complainant is not maintainable and same was repudiated by the OPs, vide letter dated 10.08.2022. The complainants have not suffered any kind of loss due to OPs and they are not entitled for any kind of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Learned counsel for the Op no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the Op is  merely a facilitator of services on behalf of third party service providers. OP no.3 is a platform where the customer can view search, compare and then choose the most suitable product/insurance policy matching with their requirements and after chooses an insurance plan, he makes the premiums payment to insurance company not to OP and thereafter insurance company issues the policy and then the transaction is solely between the insurance company(seller) and the customer (buyer). In the present complaint, complainant had purchased three individual travel insurance policies through the website of the OP and insurance policies have been issued to the complainants by the SBI General Insurance Company i.e. OPs no.1 and 2. Hence, the OPs no.1 and 2 are liable for all the services mentioned in the insurance policy. He further argued that complainant never approached the OP with respect to the policy claims. As per Insurance Laws, the right to take the decision with respect to approving or rejecting or cancelling the claim or reimbursement or availing of any service as stated in the terms of policy is that of the insurer. Thus, the OP no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation as caused by the complainants and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

13.           Learned counsel for the OP no.4, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant filed the present complaint due to cancellation of the flight from Moncton to Montreal on June 28, 2022 and he raised a claim against the OPs no.1 and 2, which was repudiated. There is no specific claim against OP no.4.  The flight was cancelled on June 28, 2022 due to safety condition and paucity of staff owing to Covid restrictions in Canada. During the Covid restrictions India banned all international flights from March, 2020. The banned continued until March, 2022 with restricted flights under the Bubble Agreement due to SARS and Omicron Virus. At the end of March, 2022, Director General of Civil Aviation permitted limited number of commercial flights to operate from India on a weekly basis or bi-weekly basis with heavy passenger load. The relaxation was given by the Government on June 8, 2022 with other restrictions. Despite the relaxation, airlines were operating on limited flights with scarce staff. Any passengers who was traveling in such restricted times was fully aware of the consequences including sudden flight cancellation, government restrictions being imposed on a daily basis and changing scenario of Covid Sars as well as Omicron virus spread. He further argued that the flight was cancelled due to Russsia Ukrain war. There is no fault on the part of Air Canada and complainant cannot seek any relief on the ground of cancellation of flights during the covid period. He further argued that complainant has not disclosed the fact that he was provided a CAD 500 for food voucher and thereafter a claim of CAD 1071 and lateron CAD 1200 was raised of which the hotel stay was of CAD 753. Air Canada though not liable to pay any compensation released a further payment of Rs.74,175/- on September 20, 2022 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.4.

14.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

15.           Admittedly, complainants booked air tickets with OP no.4 and for going to Canada from 25^th May, 2022 to 28^th June, 2022. It is also admitted that complainant got their trip insured from OP no.1 through OP no.2. It is also admitted that the on 28.06.2022 the flight from Moncton to Montreal was cancelled by the airlines.

16.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letters Ex.C7 to Ex.C9 dated 10.08.2022 on the following ground, which are reproduced as under:-

“We carefully perused the claim documents and it is observed that you have booked your return flight from Moncton to Delhi via Montreal got cancelled and rescheduled for 4^th July, 2022 due to Manpower Constraints and Covid-19 protocols, you want to claim for Trip delay benefit.    

In reference to their details submitted, we would like to refer policy section A(ii) for travel support benefit of Trip Delay which states that “Subject to all other terms and conditions, if the aircrafts on which the insured person is booked to Travel from India is delayed beyond 12 hours then the original scheduled departure time, the insurer will pay US $ 200 for every 12 hours delay in excess of first 12 hours, subject to the maximum amount mentioned in the policy schedule. However, the insurer will not pay, (1) for any departure which is delayed as a result of the insured person or any other person who is to travel with him failing to check in correctly as required by the airlines. (2) For any delayed departure caused by strike or industrial action known to exist or was anticipated at the time the trip was booked. (3) If the aircraft is taken out of service on the instructions of Civil Aviation Authority or similar authority.

We regret to inform you this claim for your Trip Delay is not payable as, the benefits does not over the circumstances claimed for, as per policy terms and conditions.

Hence, we are unable to consider this claim.”

 

17.           The OPs no.1 and 2 have alleged that the return flight from Moncton to Delhi via Montreal got cancelled and rescheduled for 4^th July, 2022 due to Manpower Constraints and Covid-19 protocols. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but they have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. As per Government Circular, the restriction placed by the Government of India was relaxed on June 8, 2022. The flight of the complainant, which was a domestic flight in Canada was cancelled on 28.06.2022, well after a period of twenty days after the relaxation of the restrictions placed by the Government of India. These restrictions were applicable in India and not in Canada. There is nothing on record to show that any restrictions were placed by the Government of Canada. Hence plea taken by the OPs has no force.

18.           The OPs no.1 and 2 have further alleged that the return journey of the complainants is not covered in the policy. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but they have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OPs no.1 and 2 have intentionally concealed these facts in insurance policy that any delay in the trip resulting from a cancellation or delay of flight on the return journey is not covered in the policy. Even, OP no.3 has also concealed this information on their website. It is the duty of the facilitator to clear on its website which situations are not covered in the insurance. OPs no. 1 to 2 have clearly represented their respective website as well as insurance policy that they are providing the coverage of complete trip delay in their international travel insurance policy. They have even specified the word ‘trip’ means any journey starting and ending in India having a foreign destination.  It has been mentioned on page no.3 of the policy document that the each of the claimant will be entitled to a maximum sum of USD 2000 for the trip delay. The meaning of the word “Trip” as per Cambridge dictionary is “a journey in which you go somewhere usually for a short time and come back again”. The same definition of the word “Trip” has been given on page 12 at sr. no.46 in the policy document. So, it cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that the policy does not cover the delay/cancellation in case of the return flight. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to misrepresentation of facts. In this regard, we place reliance upon the case law titled as Jacob Punnen and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, (Civil Appeal No.6778 of 2013, decided on 09.12.2021), wherein Hon;ble Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by contracting parties. Good faith forbids either party from concealing (non-disclosure) what the privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact and his believing the contrary. Just as the insured has the duty to disclose. Similarly, it is the duty of the insurers and their agents to disclose all material facts within their knowledge, since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the assured. In the said case law, it has also been held that “a contract or a term thereof is substantially unfair if such contract or the term thereof is in itself harsh, oppressive or unconscionable to one of the parties, recently while deciding a consumer disputes this court applied the principle that unfair term in a contract cannot be enforced, if there is absence of free choice on part of the consumer”.  The OPs no.1 to 2 are only trying to twist the matter to escape their liability to pay the claim amount. Hence, plea taken by the OPs with regard to the return journey of the complainants is not covered in the policy has no force.  

19.           OP No.3 has alleged that the insurance policies had been issued by OPs NO.1 & 2. The complainant never paid any consideration to the OP, therefore, relationship between consumer and service provider is non-existent between the complainant and theOP.

20.           The OP no.4 has alleged that the flight was cancelled due to Russsia Ukrain war. The cancelled flight of the complainants was a domestic Canadian flight providing connection from Moncton to Montreal to the second international flight from Montreal to New Delhi. There is no reason for a domestic flight to be affected by a war between two countries. Hence, plea taken by the OP no.4 has no force.

20.           The complainant has alleged that the OP no.4 in its written version has wrongly submitted that they also issued food voucher valued at CAD 500 to the complainants. The food vouchers were issued for CAD 60 only. The onus to prove their version was relied upon the complainant. To prove their version, complainants have placed on record email Ex.C21 dated 30.06.2022 wherein it is mentioned that no meal hotel voucher was provided to them at that time and the meal voucher worth $60 provided to them was only for one night. The said voucher could be used only at the Moncton airport. Hence plea taken by the complainant has force.  .

21.           OP no.4 has alleged that the complainants concealed the fact of receiving a payment of Rs.74175/- from them.
The said amount has been paid by the OPs after the filing of the present complaint on 05.09.2022. Therefore, these facts of receiving this amount could not be mentioned in the complaint but this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his affidavit.

22.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the act of OPs No.1 & 2 amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. As per insurance policies Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, in case of delay in trip, the insurance company (OPs No.1 & 2) shall be liable to pay 2000 USD to each complainants. Thus, all the complainants are entitled for 6000 USD  from the OPs NO.1 & 2 alongwith interest, compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses etc. The OP No.3 is only a mediator and it has no role to play in it and OP No.4 already compensated the complainant and the fact has already been admitted by the complainant. Therefore, complaint against OPs No.3 & 4 stands dismissed.

23.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No. 1 to 2 to pay 6000 USD to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 10.08.2022 till its realization. We further direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. Complaint qua OPs No.3 & 4 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 29.01.2024

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

             (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Suman Singh) 

                   Member                  Member