Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/307/2023

PRABH KAMAL SINGH S/O LATE JAGMOHAN SINGH GREWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/307/2023
Date of Institution	:	16/06/2023
Date of Decision	:	07/06/2024

                    

Prabh Kamal Singh s/o late Jagmohan Singh Grewal, Jangpur road, near railway crossing, near master Amarjeet Singh house, village Dakha, Mullanpur. Ludhiana, 141102, Punjab, India.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Insurance Ombudsman, Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, SCO no. 101-103, 2nd floor Batra Building, Sector 17-D Chandigarh-160017/Through its Director

2.     Shriram general insurance Co. Ltd, 3^rd Floor, Jhandu tower, Miller Ganj, near Manju cinema, grand trunk road, Ludhiana, Punjab, 141003/ Through its Director

3.     Shriram general insurance Co. Ltd, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302022/ Through its Director

4.     Trans Union CIBIL Limited, one world centre, Tower 2A, 19th floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Ellphinstone Road, Mumbai, 400013/Through its Director

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Karamdeep Kaur, authorized representative of complainant
	:	Complaint against OP-1 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.9.2023
	:	Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate for OPs 2 & 3
	:	Complaint against OP-4 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.5.2024

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Prabh Kamal Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainant is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No.PB10-GK-5588 (hereinafter referred to as “subject truck”) and the same was insured with the insurer/OPs 2 & 3 w.e.f. 15.12.2017 to 14.12.2018 with IDV of ₹15,48,500/-. Copies of RC and insurance policy are Annexure A & B.  When the subject truck was on the way from Coimbatore to Uttrakhand to deliver consignment and reached Aurangabad (Maharashtra), it met with an accident on 4.5.2018 in which its cabin was totally damaged.  Photographs showing the damage and FIR are Annexure D & E. In the said accident, the helper sustained severe injuries and he was shifted to hospital, but, ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. Intimation about the accident was also given to the insurer/OPs 2 & 3 and they deputed surveyor who inspected the subject truck on the spot at Aurangabad. Thereafter the subject truck was taken into possession by the police and was got released by the complainant from the local court vide order dated 28.5.2018 (Annexure F). The subject truck was towed to the local agency for repair where estimate (Annexure G) to the tune of ₹9,17,587/- was given.  However, as the complainant was not in a positon to pay the huge amount, he decided to ask his relatives and friends for collection of the amount and when he failed to get the said amount, within 2-3 months, he decided to get the subject truck repaired in Punjab and accordingly the same was taken to Moga for repair.  The subject truck was repaired by various firms who charged an amount of ₹3.00 lacs approximately for the repair and copies of the bill are Annexure H.  The subject truck was inspected by another surveyor who asked the complainant to provide all the invoices so that the claim could be processed.  Complainant had also provided help to the family of helper, Ravi Kumar who had died in the accident. Due to the loss to the subject truck, step father of the complainant namely Sh. Kuldip Singh Grewal suffered with anxiety and finally he lost his life on 18.4.2019. After his demise complainant approached the insurer/OPs many times for processing his claim, but, with no result. Accordingly, complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh who vide award dated 15.3.2023 (Annexure L) had directed the OPs to pay admissible claim of the complainant subject to terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days.  However, even after passing of the award by the Insurance Ombudsman, OPs 2 &3/insurers had only reimbursed an amount of ₹1,28,406/- in the account of the complainant on 29.3.2023 vide Annexure M, which was not even assessed by the insurance company as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs 2 & 3 and OP-4 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written versions.
3. In their joint written version OPs 2 & 3/insurer, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts.  However, it is admitted that the subject truck was insured with the answering OPs. It is further alleged that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not within time as the accident had taken place in the year 2018 and he has filed the present consumer complaint after five years of the said accident and after the order of the Ombudsman an amount of ₹1,28,406/- was transferred in the account of the complainant through NEFT and the consumer complaint is not maintainable.  It is further alleged that even this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as the accident had taken place at Aurangabad and the subject truck is registered in Ludhiana and OP-2 is also having its registered office at Ludhiana. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version OP-4, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  It is further alleged that, in fact, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint against the answering OP as jurisdiction is barred under Section 31 of The Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 and The Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. Vide order dated 15.9.2023 of this Commission, the consumer complaint against OP-1 was dismissed as withdrawn, being not pressed.
6. Vide order dated 29.5.2024 of this Commission, the consumer complaint against OP-4 was dismissed as withdrawn, being not pressed.
7. In rejoinder to the written version of OPs 2 & 3, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the authorised representative of complainant, learned counsel for the contesting OPs and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject truck, which was insured with the insurer/OPs 2 & 3 at the relevant time i.e. on the day of accident, as is also evident from the certificate cum policy schedule (Annexure B) and on 4.5.2018 the same met with an accident near Aurangabad, as is also evident from the copy of FIR (Annexure E) and the same was released by order of court dated 28.5.2018, as is also evident from Annexure F, and the complainant had earlier approached the Insurance Ombudsman who, vide award dated 15.3.2023, directed the insurer/OPs 2 & 3 to pay the admissible claim of the complainant subject to the terms and conditions of the policy with interest within 30 days, as is also evident from the copy of award (Annexure L) and despite of that the insurer/OPs 2 & 3 had only released the partial claim of ₹1,28,406/- to the complainant through NEFT on 29.3.2023, as is also evident from Annexure M,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the insurer/OPs 2 & 3 have not settled the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the insurer/OPs 2 & 3 have rightly partially allowed the claim of the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the policy schedule, and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Perusal of Annexure G & H clearly indicates that the complainant had placed on record only the estimates of repair to the tune of ₹9,17,587/-  ₹17,530/- and ₹42,750/-, and has not proved that he had spent the amount as per the estimates.  However, when the complainant himself has alleged in his consumer complaint that he had spent an amount of approximately ₹3.00 lacs for the repair of the subject truck and has proved copies of cash/bill (Annexure H1, H2 and H3) and further it is clear from the aforesaid cash bills that the complainant had spent total amount of ₹2,38,500/- for the repair of the subject truck and OPs 2 & 3/insurer even did not care to get the loss of the subject truck assessed through their surveyor, despite of the direction of the insurance ombudsman, it is safe to hold that OPs 2 & 3 have erred in allowing the claim of the complainant partially by transferring only an amount of ₹1,28,406/- out of total amount of ₹2,38,500/- and thereby wrongly withheld an amount of ₹1,10,094/- from the total amount spent by the complainant for the repair of the subject truck and the said act of OPs 2 & 3 certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
   3. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, as it stands proved on record that the OPs had processed the claim of the complainant partially, that too after passing of the award dated 15.3.2023 by the Insurance Ombudsman, who directed OPs 2 & 3/insurer to pay the claim of the complainant within one month, and the complainant had approached this Commission after transfer of an amount of ₹1,28,406/- only from OPs 2 & 3 on 29.3.2023, it is safe to hold that the cause of action arose to the complainant on the said date only when OPs 2 & 3 partially disallowed the claim of the complainant.  As it is further clear that the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint on 16.6.2023 i.e. well within the prescribed period of two years, it is unsafe to hold that the instant consumer complaint is barred by limitation. 
   4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and OPs 2 & 3/insurer are liable to pay the balance claim of ₹1,10,094/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation etc.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs 2 & 3 are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹1,10,094/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 29.3.2023 (i.e. the date when the partial amount was transferred to the complainant) onwards.
2. to pay ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OPs 2 & 3 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

07/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member