Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/306/2020

Diljot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Goyal & Sanyam Bhardwaj

23 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Diljot Singh aged about 28 years S/o Sh.Avtarjeet Singh R/o House No.890, Sector-7, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2^nd Floor, SCO 232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. Email … Opposite Party

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      The long and short of the allegations are that the complainant have purchased one old car make Audi A8 3.0 TDI QUATTRO Model 2012 bearing Registration No.HR-26-BT-0019 from, M/s ASK Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.28, Sector 4, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon. A copy of the RC is attached herewith as Annexure C-9. At the time of getting policy, IDV value of the car was fixed by the Opposite Party @ Rs.43,39,418/- and a premium was paid Rs.2,37,015/-, which was calculated according to the IDV value (Annexure C-1). After purchase of vehicle, complainant approached the opposite party for transfer of insurance policy in his name. After completing the formalities aforesaid insurance was transferred in the name of complainant on 01.06.2020 (Annexure C-4). For transfer Opposite Party has also charged a sum of Rs.926/- from the complainant. Unfortunately, on 12.06.2020 vehicle met with an accident. Immediately information was given to the office of Opposite Party. Complainant maintained that the policy is a Zero Depreciation comprehensive Policy. If the vehicle was older than 5 years, IDV value shall be construed as per understanding between the insurer and insured. Further IDV shall be taken as market value throughout the policy period, without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss/constructive total loss. It was stated that if total retrieval value exceeds   75 per cent of the total costs, the vehicle shall be treated as total constructive loss, as per policy (Annexure C-3). Per complainant, the Opposite Party has issued letter dated 06.07.2020, in which it has sought the proof for purchase of car/agreement of purchase. The complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party number of times and all the times they have given lame excuses. Complainant also served a legal notice, which was served to Opposite Party by hand on 13.07.2020 (Annexure C-8). Since Opposite Party is not paying the claim, complainant alleged that Opposite Party is deficient in rendering the services. Hence this present complaint.
2.     Opposite Party contested the consumer complaint. It stated in the letters dated 6.7.2020, 27.9.2020 and 11.9.2020 that the company offerred to settled the claim on its merits regarding the admissibility of the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy on CTL(Constructive Total Loss) basis as per condition of the policy. The company proposes to replace the damaged vehicle with the vehicle of same make and model and seek in principle approval of the complainant for settlement of claim on replacement basis. The Opposite Party maintains that the company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the vehicle or part thereof and/or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage. The Opposite Party as such has called upon the complainant vide letter dated 6.7.2020 to provide purchase agreement with mode of payment (cash/cheque/DD). The documents sought for was the material document required for processing of the claim. The complainant had failed to submit the documents till date inspite of the reminder dated 27.08.2020 and 10.09.2020 followed by telephonic reminders and as such adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant as per the law of the land. It is submitted that the premium is taken as per the provisions of Insurance Act since as per Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act the insurance in India will not commence unless the premium is paid in advance. It is therefore, prayed the present complaint be dismissed with costs qua Opposite Party. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     The basic facts of the case have been admitted by the Opposite Party. After appraising the entire evidence and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the Opposite Party is bound to settle the claim of the complainant, as the vehicle was duly insured with them and the action of the Opposite Party in refusing to pay the claim of the complainant in respect of the aforesaid vehicle even after several requests made by him amounts to deficiency in service.
7.     We are not convinced with the stand of the Opposite Party that it can replace the vehicle with an old car. We do not find any where mentioned in the policy that Opposite Party can replace the vehicle with some old vehicle. Further it also observed on perusal of the documents, that it is only optional, as per the condition of the policy and we do not find any offer made by Opposite Party to the complainant to replace the car with new car.   
8.     Further at Page No.41 of the reply of Opposite Party it is clearly mentioned that IDV shall be treated as the Market Value throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss (TL/constructive Total Loss (CLT) Claims. Further in the present case it is not disputed that car in question was declared as total loss. It is clear from Page No.32 of the reply of the Opposite Party that IDV of the Vehicle is Rs.43,39,418/-, with policy period is from 20.06.2019 to 19.06.2020 and accident took place on 12.06.2020. Even on 15.06.2020 the Opposite Party has appointed the Surveyor also. So, strictly as per policy, complainant is entitled to IDV which is Rs.43,39,418/-, after retaining the salvage by the Opposite Party.
9.     Further we are not convinced that as per directions of Ministry of Finance, complainant is required to submit documents, at the time of seeking claim. Documents annexed with reply of Opposite Party, nowhere suggest that complainant needs to submit documents at the time of receiving the claim. Rather it was the duty of Opposite Party to seek, whatever documents it wanted, at the time of receiving the premium or at the time of transfer of policy in the name of the complainant. Further car was already duly transferred in the name of the complainant, by registering authority. Thereafter only Opposite Party, after verifying the transfer in the name of the complainant, transferred the policy in the name of the complainant, after receiving transfer money. On perusal of documents it is observed that of transfer of policy at the time no such objection was raised. We are of the concerted view that later on just to deny the claim, the Opposite Party has raised the objections. Opposite Party have relied upon the instructions starting from Page No.71 of the reply to Page No.78 of reply which nowhere suggest that Opposite Party is required to call for such documents, at the time of settlement/payment of claim of Motor Vehicle, in accidental case. Rather it was the duty of Opposite Party to seek, whatever documents it wanted, at the time of receiving the premium or before the time of transfer of policy in the name of the complainant.
10.     This is an admitted fact that on the one hand, Opposite Party had appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss per Page 83 of the reply of Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.34,90,000/-, (80% of the IDV), but on the other hand they denied the claim of the complainant on the one ground or the other notwithstanding the fact that the complainant furnished all the relevant documents to Opposite Party which were asked by him.
11.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that Opposite Party have miserably failed in their duties towards the insured and the pain and loss that the complainant have gone though is solely due to its negligent act. We feel that having created a shield for itself in coining the lame excuse of AML also amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. 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 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.
12.     Hence, on the above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct Opposite Party to release the amount of the claim equivalent to IDV as Rs.43,39,418/-, after retaining the remains of accidental vehicle. However, we are also of the concerted view that Opposite Party is at liberty to take any appropriate action under the rules/guidelines of AML, if any violation is observed about the transaction made by the complainant and they can bring it to the notice of the appropriate/competent authorities under AML for further necessary desired action.
13.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Party  directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹43,39,418/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of submission of claim..
2. to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
4. The complainant shall return the remains of accidental vehicle to the Opposite Party along with all the necessary documentation work.

14.     This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.