DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

M/s Oasis Technocons Limited, Corp. Office # 1458, HIG, Phase IX, Mohali (Pb.) through its Director Er.Amit Garg.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office SCO No.1070-71, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through Branch Manager.

2.       The Manager, Claims Hub, The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.R.P.Kansal, Counsel for complainant.

                     Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                M/s Oasis Technocons Limited, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that it owns tippers, trucks, JCB machines, Bulldozer etc. for the construction work. In the year 2011, the complainant firm purchased a brand new tipper make AMW bearing chassis No.22260 and engine No.63192650, which was got insured from OP No.1 vide policy No.35010231110100002450, copy of which is Annexure C-2 for the period from 14.11.2011 to 13.11.2012. The said tipper was got registered vide registration No.PB-65-P-5537 with the authorities. The said tipper met with an accident and the complainant spent an amount of Rs.32,161/- on the repair/replacement of the damaged parts and photocopy of the bill is Annexure C-3. The complainant filed a claim along with all the bills, documents etc. to OP No.2 in April, 2012. However, OPs No.1 and 2 did not proceed with the claim despite sending of the letter dated 20.6.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-4. It has been further alleged that OP No.1 sent a letter dated 3.7.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-6, whereby an amount of Rs.23,138/- was demanded as a premium in addition to the already paid premium of Rs.23,491/- as a pre-condition to proceed further with the claim filed by the complainant. The complainant again sent letters to the OPs for release of the amount but the OPs filed the claim as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 3.9.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-8. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to reimburse/refund the amount of Rs.32,161/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., apart from making payment of compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice etc.

2.                In their written reply, OPs have admitted that the complainant purchased a new AMW tipper and the same was insured w.e.f. 14.11.2011 to 13.11.2012 vide insurance policy, copy of which is Annexure R1-2/A. It has been stated that after receiving the information regarding the accident of the vehicle Mr.Rajneesh Gupta was deputed for conducting spot survey. On receiving his report Mr.Inder Pal Singh was deputed to conduct final survey and he after applying depreciation value and deducting excess clause assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13,481.38. Copies of spot survey report and final survey report are annexed as Annexure R1-2/B to R1-2/C. It has been averred that after receiving the final survey report when the claim of the complainant was under process, it was found that due to mistake at the time of issuing the insurance policy, it was issued under Section 4-D of Indian Motor Tariff i.e. Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicle and accordingly premium of Rs.23,491/- was charged from the complainant. However, the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant for commercial purpose and the same was to be got insured under Section 4-A of Indian Motor Tariff i.e. goods carrying vehicle, for which, the total premium amount comes to the tune of Rs.46,629/-. It has been stated that the above fault was committed by the OPs due to oversight and the complainant was asked to deposit the short charged premium to the tune of Rs.23,138/- enabling them to further process the claim. It has been stated that the complainant wants to take double benefit as to get the amount as assessed by the surveyor by not depositing the balance premium amount with OPs. It has been further stated that since the complainant has refused to pay the balance amount, therefore, the OPs treated the claim as ‘No Claim.’

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                After scrutinizing the entire evidence and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the complaint merits acceptance.

5.                It is the admitted case of the OPs that a new tipper bearing registration No.PB-65-P-5537, engine No.63192650 & chassis No.22260 was insured by the complainant with the OPs vide insurance policy, copy of which is Annexure C-2 for the period from 14.11.2011 to 13.11.2012. It is also admitted that the said vehicle met with an accident and a claim for reimbursement of the amount spent on the repair/replacement of the damaged parts was submitted with the OPs. Copy of survey report Annexure R1-2/C shows that against the net estimated loss of Rs.41757.90, the assessed loss was calculated as Rs.13481.38 by Sh.Inder Pal Singh, Surveyor. The only ground on which the OPs are refusing to make the payment of the claim of the complainant is that in fact a premium of Rs.46,629/- was to be charged for the said vehicle because it was a goods carrying vehicle but on account of the fault due to oversight at the time of issuance of the insurance policy, a premium of Rs.23,491/- was taken, therefore, vide letter dated 3.7.2012 – Annexure C-6 the complainant was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs.23,138/- without which the claim of the complainant cannot be settled. The only question that survives for determination is whether at this juncture the OPs can refuse the reimbursement of the claim to the complainant and impose a pre-condition of payment of the balance amount of Rs.23,138/- towards premium.

6.                After scanning the entire evidence, we feel that the ground of refusal to make the payment of the claim amount raised by the OPs is frivolous, unjustified and baseless. Pertinently the said tipper of the complainant was insured w.e.f. 14.11.2011 to 13.11.2012. The said tipper met with an accident in April, 2012, for which, the claim was lodged with the OPs. Thereafter the OPs after receiving the report of the surveyor sent a letter dated 3.7.2012 i.e. after more than 7 months of inception of the policy, whereby the complainant was informed that due to oversight, vehicles were insured under Section 4-D Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicles and the premium of Rs.23,138/- was short and he was asked to deposit the short charged premium. We are of the view that when the complainant was not at fault and the OPs voluntarily accepted the premium of Rs.23,491/- at the time of issuance of insurance policy on 14.11.2011, they cannot take the benefit of their own fault and ask the complainant firstly to deposit an amount of Rs.23,138/- for getting the assessed loss of Rs.13481.38. We are of the opinion that when the OPs accepted the premium with their eyes open, the complainant cannot be penalized for the fault of their officials. We are of the opinion that the OPs are estopped by their act and conduct from claiming the balance amount of Rs.23,138/- towards premium.

7.                Apart from that, the learned Counsel for the complainant has produced a copy of letter No.IRDA/NL/ORD/MPL/077/03/2012 dated 29.3.2012 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, which shows that re-classification of certain vehicles including tippers took place and 7 types of vehicles including tippers were placed under Goods Carrying Vehicles. This letter was issued on 29.3.2012 i.e. during subsistence of the policy of the tipper of the complainant, which had taken effect w.e.f. 14.11.2011. According to the learned Counsel for the complainant, the reclassification applied vide letter dated 29.3.2012 cannot be applied retrospectively. We find considerable force in this contention. Once the insurance policy had already been issued to the complainant on the basis of classification of the vehicles in November, 2011, the OPs could not claim the deficient amount of premium on the basis of the letter dated 29.3.2012 in July, 2012. Consequently, we feel that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. We are of the view that the complainant is certainly entitled to the amount of Rs.13,481.38 as loss assessed by the Surveyor. However, we are not impressed with this contention that the complainant is entitled to the refund of an amount of Rs.32,161/- as claimed in the complaint.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. OPs are directed :-

i)                 To refund an amount of Rs.13481/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim till realization.

ii)                To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards costs of litigation.

9.                This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim, till its realization.

10.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.