Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/227

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General InsuranceCo.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Mittal Adv.

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 227 dated 13.05.2019.       

                                                Date of decision: 19.12.2022. 

 

Surinder Singh Grewal son of Sh. Ram Singh Grewal, resident of House No.1, Village Threeke, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (now deceased) through his LRs:-

1. Jaswant Kaur (wife)
2. Avinash Singh Grewal (son)

both residents of village Threeke, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. & Corporate Office E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sita Pur, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022 Through its Director/Authorized signatory.
2. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office SCO 18-19, 3^rd Floor, Jandu Tower, Ludhina-141003, Punjab through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ashok Mittal, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. K.M. Sethi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Skoda Car make VOLKSWAGEN-JETTA 1.9 TRENDLINE TDi bearing registration No.PB-10-CB-2525 vide registration certificate Ex-C1. The complainant has purchased the insurance policy No.105029/31/17/008286 having validity from 08.03.2017 to 07.03.2018 for a premium of Rs.19,028/- (Ex. C2). On 07.01.2018, at about 11.00 AM, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and a DDR No.10 dated 08.01.2018 was lodged at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana (Ex. C3). The complainant had duly informed the opposite parties on 12.01.2018 and lodged the claim No.10000/31/18/C/072235. Mr. Japneet Singh was appointed as surveyor. The complainant took the vehicle to Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana on 13.01.2018 and the said vehicle Lally Motors estimated the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.13,88,666.52 vide estimation Ex. C4. The complainant supplied all the requisite documents to the aforesaid surveyor of the opposite parties but instead of clearing the claim, the opposite parties had issued letters dated 16.02.2018 (Ex. C5), 20.02.2018 (Ex. C6), 22.02.2018 (Ex. C7) and 06.03.2018 (Ex. C8). As per the complainant, he supplied the requisite documents to the opposite parties as and when demanded and also sought information by making an RTI application on 14.08.2018 (Ex. C9) with regard to the status of the claim but the opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainant which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties resulting financial loss and mental harassment to the complainant. The complainant also issued a legal notice dated 02.01.2019 (Ex. C10) upon the opposite parties through his counsel Sh. Ashok Mittal, Advocate but no positive response has been evoked. Hence the complaint whereby the complainant sought direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.13,88,666.25 on account of estimated loss of the vehicle and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, loss, damage etc along with Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement OP4 filed written statement by taking preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. Further the opposite parties alleged that there is no deficiency in service their part. According to the opposite parties, they had appointed an IRDA approved surveyor for assessing the liability which was provisionally assessed to the tune of Rs.5,01,373/-. The complainant was requested to submit the documents and give clarification for survey and settlement of the claim but he has failed to produce the same as per terms of the policy and as per IRDA rules. Copy of the policy along with terms and conditions is Annexure-1, copy of letter dated 20.03.2018 Annexure-2 and postal receipt dated 27.03.2018 as Annexure-3, survey report Annexure-4, copy of letter dated 16.02.2018 as Annexure-5, letter dated 22.02.2018 as Annexure-6 and postal receipt as Annexure-7. On merits, the lodging of the claim on 12.01.2018 was admitted. While giving para wise reply, the opposite parties reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections and submissions and once again denied for having indulged in unfair trade practice or there was deficiency in service and prayer for dismissal of the complaint t also made.  

3.                During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant Sh. Surinder Singh died on 09.12.2020 and his legal heirs Jaswant Kaur (wife) and Avinash Singh Grewal (son) filed application for impleading them as party being legal heirs of Surinder Singh Grewal. Vide order dated 26.10.2021, the application was allowed and legal heirs of the complainant were allowed to be impleaded as party in the present complaint. The legal heirs of the complainant filed amended title on 13.12.2021.

4.                In evidence, the complainant Avinash Singh Grewal tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant also placed on record the documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C14 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amandeep Sharma, authorized signatory of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R7 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

7.                Perusal of Ex. C5 to Ex. C7 shows that Mr. Japneet Singh, IRDA approved surveyor had demanded the following documents from the complainant:-

a. Original repairs estimate

b. Self-attested copy of previous policy

c. Original towing bills

d. Passengers details with mobile no’s, address and relation with you.

e. Injury details with medical reports or injured person.

f. Detailed written statement of insured about the accident.

g. TP vehicle details.

h. Certified FIR copy.

i. Spot photographs of the vehicle.

j. Running record/service record of the vehicle.

k. Any proof of accident.

 

It has been mentioned in the letters Ex. C5 to Ex. C7 that in case of non-supply of the documents, the claim file will be closed as ‘No claim’. A close examination of these letters reveals that these letters were issued after the receipt of the claim supported by certain documents and only the pending documents were requisitioned through these letters. Moreover, non-submission of the documents cannot be made a sole ground to close the claim of the complainant. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical.

8.                In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

Ex. R4 is the assessment summary in which the liability has been assessed as Rs.5,01,373.25. However, it was the duty of the opposite party to assess the loss even when the documents were submitted to them. Sh. Japneet Singh, Surveyor vide his report Ex. R4 has given his report and has assessed the insurance company’s liability as Rs.5,01,373.25/-. The complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement, so far as the surveyor report Ex. R4 is concerned as the complainant has neither filed any objections to controvert the averments made in the written statement.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay the claim of Rs.5,01,373.25/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R4 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Surinder Singh Grewal Vs Shri Ram GIC                       CC/19/227

Present:       Sh. Ashok Mittal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. K.M. Sethi, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay the claim of Rs.5,01,373.25/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R4 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.