Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/858/2015

Kuljeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

09 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/858/2015
Date of Institution	:	23/12/2015
Date of Decision	:	09/03/2018

 

Kuljeet Kaur wife of deceased Kuljit Singh, resident of H.No. 2440, Mariwala Town, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

[1]     Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Director, SCO 178, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

          Regd. Office: E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302022 (India).

 

[2]     Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., through its Director, SCO 178, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SMT. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Vinod K. Arya, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1
		Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that her husband was the owner of truck bearing No. HR-68-4702, which was comprehensively insured with the Opposite Party No.1 for the period 03.10.2013 to 02.10.2014 with an IDV of Rs.6,45,093/-. The said insurance policy was also carrying a personal accident cover for the owner-driver for Rs.2.00 Lacs. Unfortunately, on 25.12.2013, the said Truck met with an accident at Orissa, in which the insured Kuljit Singh died and the tuck was also got badly damaged. Due intimation regarding loss/damage was given to the Opposite Party No.1 and at the same time FIR NO.61 dated 26.12.2013 was registered at P.S. Pottangi, District Koranput, Orrisa. The Complainant being a destitute and an illiterate lady was under tremendous shock and depress on account of death of her husband and did not have the acquaintance about her entitlement to the personal accident cover under section 3 for the owner-driver (CSI) for Rs.2.00 lacs. Immediately after acquiring the knowledge regarding the same, she contacted her lawyer and got served a legal notice dated 13.08.2015 upon the Opposite Party No.1 along with relevant documents for claim, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 13.06.2016.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that the present Complaint is time barred and is also pre-mature as the Complainant was requested to submit certain documents vide letter dated 29.9.2015, which she did not submit for settlement of claim. It has been urged that no information regarding the incident about the accident was given to the answering Opposite Party. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed rebuttal by way of affidavit, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for contesting Parties.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         The basic facts of the case have been admitted by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant being the legal heir of Late Sh. Kuljit Singh, was solely dependent upon the income of the deceased who died in an accident on 25.12.2013, has approached this Forum against the non-settlement of her claim by the Opposite Parties.
9.         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 Complainant, as the vehicle was duly insured with them and the action of the Opposite Parties in not settling the claim of the Complainant in respect of the personal accident death cover under Section 3 for the owner/driver (CSI) for Rs.2.00 lacs, even after serving notice and repeated requests made by her amounts to deficiency in service.
10.         At any rate, the Complainant is an illiterate lady 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 her husband late Sh. Kuljit Singh. There is no doubt about the fact that the Complainant and her family members were in great shock after the death of Kuljeet Singh and were busy in performing his last rites and other social obligations, due to which they could not approach the Opposite Parties after the death of Sh. Kuljit Singh, who was the sole bread winner of the family.
11.         In the instant case, the incident took place on 25.12.2013 and FIR was lodged with the P.S. Pottangi, District Koranput, Orissa on 26.12.2013. It is thus evident that the FIR was lodged on the next day without any delay. Therefore, non-settlement of the claim of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties, is totally unjust and unfair.     
12.         The primary defence of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Complaint is premature as the Complainant was asked vide letter dated 29.09.2015 to submit documents, but instead of submitting the document, Complainant had filed the present Consumer Complaint.  However, we are not impressed with the same and are of the firm view that in fact the Opposite Party No.1 is trying to cover its own follies by making reference to said letter dated 29.09.2015 which is neither placed on record nor proof of delivery of the same had been attached. Hence, the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 remains totally unsubstantiated regarding above issue.
13.         The Opposite Party No.1 has also contested the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Complaint is time barred. However, we are not impressed with the same and are of the concerted opinion that the Consumer Complaint has been filed within the period of limitation because the claim of the Complainant has not been processed/ repudiated, therefore, the cause of action in filing the present Complaint is continuing one. Otherwise also, it is a settled proposition of law that the limitation will start to run in such like cases from the date of repudiation of the claim. 
14.         It is relevant to mention here that in the present case the Opposite Party No.1 has not placed on record any Surveyor report or any affidavit of the said Surveyor to substantiate its defence. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 neither repudiated nor settled the claim of the Complainant, in as much as, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same, thus, an adverse inference is taken against the Opposite Party No.1. This action of the Opposite Party No.1 is definitely a deficiency in service on its part in the light of the provisions contained in Regulation 9(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002 and Section 13(3) of the Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors (Licensing, Professional, Requirements and Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2000. We are constrained to observe that the facts of the case, clearly demonstrate the ignorance of the Insurance Company for the aforenoted statutory Regulations, and a tardy and indifferent attitude of its functionaries. Having regard to the aforenoted factual scenario, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against the Opposite Parties.    
15.         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 Complainant has gone through is solely due to their negligent act. We feel that having created a shield for themselves in coining the lame excuse of as set out herein 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.
16.         In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed, to:-

[a]     To pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with int. @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 13.09.2015 (i.e. one month after the date of lodging of the claim vide letter dated 13.8.2015), till it is actually paid.

[b]     To pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

[c]     To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

17.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of Para 16 above w.e.f. 13.09.2015, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] of para 16 above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.  
18.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
09/03/2018	[ Suresh Kumar Sardana ]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”