Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Central District,                                   ISBT Building,  5th Floor,  Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

Complaint Case  No. 01/2019

                                                Versus

OP1   Oriental Insurance Company

          4E/14 Ground Floor,8390  Block E4.

          Azad Bhavan, Jhandewalan Extension,

          Jhandewalan  New Delhi-110055

OP2   Oriental Insurance Company

          Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road

            New Delhi-110002                                ...Opposite Party

Coram:

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

                                                ORDER-

Inder Jeet Singh

1.  (Introduction to case of parties) - There are allegations of deficiency in service as OPs had rejected complainant's insurance claim in respect of damages and repairs of his motor-cycle KTM RC 390 bearing registration no.DL3SCC 9559 (briefly vehicle). The complaint was filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Shri Mehul Katheria (hereinafter referred as  the complainant) seeks direction to the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as the OPs) to pay amount of Rs. 40,735/- towards amount spent on repairs of insured vehicle, apart from compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages on account of omission of respondent, mental trauma  & litigation expenses against the OPs. He also claims pendent-lite and future interest @ of 18%  p.a. till date of payment and costs. Whereas Opposite Parties/ Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred OPs or insurer) opposed the claim on the grounds that this Commission (Central District) lacks jurisdiction on subject complaint, there is delay of 9 days in informing of incident to the OPs and non-compliance of OP's letters dated  17.4.2017, 24.4.2017 and 16.5.017 by the Complainant for furnishing requisite information/record. As per policy condition no.3, the liability of insurance company shall not exceed the actual value of part of damage or loss less depreciation plus reasonable cost of fitting. Moreover, the loss was assessed by independent Government licenced surveyor for Rs.32,427/-, which is also subject to terms and conditions, for its compliance letters were issued to the Complainant, who failed to respond or comply them.

2.1 (Matrix of Complainant’s case)-  In nut-shell, the complainant was previously residing at H. No. K-13, Andrews Ganj Extension, Andrews Ganj, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110049.  On 27.07.2016 he bought the vehicle bearing Regn. no. DL 3S CC 9559 from KTM Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and got it registered on 30.7.2016, which was got insured from the OPs vide Insurance Policy no.272300/31/2017/3963. Insurance Code 74444704. The  registered office of OP is at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi The Complainant was studying in Pune. On 4.12017 a girl trying to cross road bumped into the vehicle of complainant, vehicle fell down and there was extensive damage. The vehicle was brought to KTM Sai Service Wagholi, Pune for necessary repairs. Since it happened in Pune, thus complainant immediately contacted and informed about episode to OP's Call Service representative, who advised to write it by email to OP with estimate of repairs.  Thus, on 13.1.2017, the complainant wrote email to Shri Kuldeep Singh at kuldeepsingh@orientalinsurance.co.in by furnishing claim form, estimate of repairs, copies driving licence and RC.  However, the complainant was asked to furnish copy of charge-sheet but police had not supplied it, thus complainant was constrained to wait till copy is provided to him by the Court, which took time, otherwise complainant was not arraigned in the  FIR, it was his own damage claim.  Despite of furnishing all papers, his claim was closed and he was advised to write to Branch Manager to re-open the case. Then, the complainant ran from pillar to post but his legitimate and valid claim was not settled and allowed.  He provided all requisite papers but claim was rejected,  whereas he is entitled for claim of Rs.40.735/- with interest towards the repairs. The OPs have no intentions to perform the agreement, there is deficiency of services and as a last resort, the complainant sent legal notice dated 12.12.2018 to the OP but no result, that is why the complaint was filed. The complaint is accompanied of the copies of policy, R/C, emails, estimate of repairs, copy of legal notice dt 12.12.2018 (along-with postal & courier receipts for sending it at OP's Branch/Centre at Jhandewalan Extension).  

2.2   (Case of OPs) -  OPs had filed their joint reply and opposed the claim vehemently. OPs opposed the claim on the grounds this Commission (Central District) lacks jurisdiction since policy was issued by OP's office at K-37 Connaught Circus New Delhi but complaint was filed in this Commission, it is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The policy issued was for Motor cycle Model 2016 for motorized two wheelers package policy for one year period w.e.f.27.07.2016 to 26.07.2017 for IDV Rs.2,02,866/- subject to various terms and condition inclusive of IMT-22 (i.e. Annex.R1 to the reply). It was 13.1.2017 when intimation of accident was given to OP's office by email, whereas accident had happened on 4.1.2017, there is delay of 9 days in informing of  incident to the OP's office. The OP's office at Pune deputed Surveyor Shri Ajit Navale to survey the matter, he visited workshop, met complainant and assessed the loss for Rs.32,427/- less salvage and furnished his report dated 11.2.2017 (Annex R2 to the reply).

       The complainant was also advised to complete the claim formalities for settlement of his claim, which were not completed by him..  The OPs' office in Delhi received claim papers with surveyor report,  it were processed and claim was approved, which was informed to the complainant by OP's letter dated  17.4.2017, to submit cash memos, discharge vouchers duly signed by him, failing which claim will be closed as 'no claim', it was not complied with. There was also no response of OPs' other letter dated 27.4.2017 and to final reminder dated 16.5.017, which was also not complied with, hence claim was closed as 'no claim' (three letters are Annex.R3 to the reply).

        As per policy condition no.3, the liability of insurance company shall not exceed the actual value of part damaged or lost less depreciation plus reasonable cost of fitting. Moreover, the loss was assessed by independent Government licenced surveyor for Rs.32,427/- subject to compliances of other terms and conditions, for which  letters were issued to the Complainant, who failed to respond or comply them. It is mandatory requirement of section 64UM of the Insurance Act that payment was to be released by OPs to the claimant after obtaining final bills/cash memo of the repairs of the vehicle as well as full and final discharge from him, which has not been complied with by the complainant.  There is no covenant for claim for loss or profit or for mental agony & pain in motor insurance  policy. The complainant is liable to dismissed.

2.3  (Replication of complainant)- The complainant filed replication to the  joint reply of OPs, reply was opposed while reaffirming his case in complaint of episode of incident, its information to OPs local office, issuing of policy. The complainant was never informed of letters for furnishing of cash memos, vouchers etc.

3. (Evidence of the parties)- The complainant Mehul Matheia filed his affidavit of evidence, while referring and relying upon the documents annexed with the complaint. It is on the lines of complaint. Whereas, Ms Monica, Sr Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-21, filed evidence by way of affidavit for OPs. It is also on the lines of reply to complaint. 

4.   (Submissions/arguments of the Parties)-  The complainant and the OPs had filed their respective written arguments, which are extracts from their pleadings and evidence. However, Shri Babul Vishwas, Advocate for complainant made oral submission and Shri Trivedi Praful, Advocate for OPs also made oral submissions on behalf of  OPs. It does not require to give its details here, as the same will be discussed point wise in order to appreciate rival contentions.

5.1     (Findings)- We have  considered the case of parties and  rival submissions, in the light of testimony of parties as well as  their documents. Before, leading to points in controversy,  there are some admitted facts (or undisputed fact) which are relevant to state as below:-

(i) the complainant got insured his vehicle no. DL3S CC 9559 by Policy no.272300/31/2017/3963 Insurance Code 74444704 for period 27.07.2016 to 26.07.2017 issued in favour of complainant in respect of  vehicle. The IDV is Rs.2,02,866/-.

(ii)  complainant's copy of policy is at page no.30 to the complaint and OPs' copy is Annex.R1.  In the policy issued to complainant, the  OPs' Registered office mentioned is Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road,  New Delhi-10002 and the Regional Office mentioned is Hansalya Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. One more address is also mentioned in rubber round seal at right top side of issuing office, this is dim seal impression bearing address etc. It also  mentions O-Debt [Zero-debt] policy.   The other copy of policy (Annex R1), address  mentioned of  issuing office is of K-3, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (being DO-21 New Delhi),

(iii) Report dated 11.2.2017 of surveyor Shri Ajit Navale reflecting details about date of survey, matter considered and assessed.

      After aforementioned conclusion, now other points of dispute are taken one by one, some of them have been raised on behalf of OPs.

5.2 (Point of territorial jurisdiction) -  There is rival contention on the point of jurisdiction as OPs' stand is that since insurance issuing office is in Connaught Circus, New Delhi,  it comes within the jurisdiction of New Delhi; thus the present Commission of Central District lacks territorial jurisdictions. Whereas, on the other side, complainant's contention is that his claim was processed and email correspondence was done at office located at Azad Bhavan, Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan  New Delhi-110055. The name of officer is Shri Kuldeep Singh, Manager . who communicated emails, his same address also finds mentioned in the correspondence exchanged. The address of OP1 is Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan  New Delhi-110055, it is within the jurisdiction of this Commission (Central District). Lastly,  the OPs had filed three letters (Annex. R3), [although they were never served upon the complainant nor complainant admits them], the said letter itself mentions OPs two addresses viz. (i)  Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110002 at bottom and (ii) DRO 4E/14 GF, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 at its top, both of these addresses have been mentioned in the complaint. Thus, this Commission (Central District) has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

5.2A    The rival contentions of both sides are to be  assessed on the basis of pleadings, documentary record and law. The submission of both the sides are based on document. At the out-set, the complaint was filed on 3.1.2019, at that time the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was prevalent. Section 11 of the Act 1986 is about Jurisdiction of District Commission,  to be on the basis of address of Opposite party [either of residence or business place or a branch office or personally work for gain] or on the basis of place where cause of action arises [either wholly or partly]. Therefore, on the basis of  this criteria, it may happen that jurisdiction of subject situation(s) may fall in one District or in more than one district.

       Since, the OPs' contention is that issuing office was in Connaught Circus, New Delhi, then it may be one of determinant for jurisdiction but not exclusive aspect as other aspect may be explored, particularly when there happens to be other area of jurisdiction.  As per copy of  policy issued to complainant, the Registered Office is of Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, that also determines the jurisdiction.  The correspondence by email was done between the parties, it was office of OPs located at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, which also find mentioned in the three letter [Annex.R-3 being relied upon by the OPs], apart from address of Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.  Moreover, Shri Kuldeep Singh, Manager of OP had made correspondence from Jhandewalan Extension office to complainant  through e-mail. Further, the Paragraph no.6 of complaint mentions e-mail address of Shri Kuldeep Singh, where complainant lodged his claim form, estimate for repairs, driving licence and registration certificate, these facts were not denied by the OPs in their joint reply. It is also not the plea of OPs that these record were not received in Divisional Office of Jhandewalan, Delhi. Since OPs has 'Service Centre Regional Office-2', at 4E/14, GF Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, doing its business of insurance as well as complainant had also lodged the claim there,  which was rejected by them.  Thus from the point of place of business as well as place of arising of cause of action is the office of Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Therefore, this Commission (Central District) has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. This point stand decided in favour of complainant and against the OPs. After determination of point of jurisdiction, now the other points of dispute are taken.

5.3 (Point of delay & non-compliance) - The next contention of OPs is that there was delay of 9 days to inform incident on 13.1.2017, which had happened earlier, which is in violation of terms of contract. The OPs' appointed surveyor had carried investigation and survey, then compensation was determined of Rs.32,727/- but it was subject to compliances requisitioned, however, the complainant failed to respond or comply the three letters issued, consequently the claim of Rs,32,727/- was closed as 'no claim'. Whereas, the other side has reservations that complainant was doing the things promptly, he immediately informed OPs' call service representative, who advised to furnish estimate etc. with claim form by email, which were accordingly furnished. The said three letters being relied upon by the OPs are manipulated by the OPs in their office as on the face of it, there is no diary number,   no proof of postal receipts of dispatch or record of service are furnished and in order the deny legitimate and valid claim of the complainant, the said fabricated copies were filed. The acts of the OPs are mala-fide, contrary to law and expectation of an insurer.

5.3A    On analysis of this rival contention, it needs to refer the record. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of complainant as well as paragraph 7 and 8 of the evidence of complainant, the complainant specifically deposed that he informed the local call service representative, that is why surveyor was appointed.  When, he also got estimate of repairs and then sent it with claim form, the estimate of repairs was made available are of 12.1.2017,  he had sent by email of 13.1.2017, which was in continuation of earlier advices given to him. It cannot be construed being adjudged by OPs.

      It is matter of record that there is no proof of dispatch and service of three letters/Annex R3 by office of OPs being relied upon, consequently for want of proof of its dispatch and service, it cannot be concluded or presumed that letters were served and to prejudice the complainant to suffer for want of occasion of compliance. Thus, this issue is also determined against the OPs that there was deliberate delay or non-compliance.

5.4 (Point of claim of repairs & compensation)  - Now the point left to be decided is in respect of claim of repairs, amount of  compensation , interest and cost of litigation. On the one side, the complainant has pleaded his case in the form of complaint and he had also led the evidence coupled with documents, which were filed with the complaint.. Whereas on the other side, the OPs opposed the entire claim for want of compliances as well as the compensation determined by surveyor is also subject to certain compliance, apart from entire amount of parts cannot be allowed as the same is also subject to depreciated value of parts of vehicle, salvage, etc. There is no scope of claim of compensation in motor vehicle policy.

5.4A    The answer of this dispute also existing in the record, it is being explored. The complainant had furnished the estimates, which were considered by the surveyor in his report dated 11.2.2017 by considering the value of spares in the estimates and correspondingly assessing depreciated value of spares to this situation of this case, the amount assessed of spares is (i.e.Rs.32,727/-) lesser than the estimate (of Rs.39,027/-).  Similarly, other component of labour was also assessed as compare to estimates, the amount assessed is (i.e. Rs.3220/-) also lesser than estimates (of Rs.7,302/-).  Then, amount of compensation assessed was communicated to the insurer/OPs by the surveyor in his report in respect of repairs and fittings.

     However, the OPs had mentioned amount of Rs. 32,427/- (i.e Rs.32,727/- less salvage of Rs,300/-) to be entitled by complainant subject to other compliances.  Since IDV of motor cycle as Rs.2,02,866/-, duly recorded in the subject policy, therefore, the complainant is held entitled for amount of Rs.32,427/- on account of repairs against the OPs, which was not released to complainant  by the OPs.

5.4B.  The OPs have strong plea that concept of compensation is alien to motor vehicle policy, whereas compensation is not being claimed from motor vehicle policy but for harassment and other trauma  suffered by complainant for want of settlement of valid claim. The correspondence exchanged also speaks a lot, as to how the complainant was prosecuting his claim in the office of OPs prior to his filing the complainant, besides sending the legal notice, which was also served by registered post & courier in its office at Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. The denial of release of legitimate and valid claim, despite convincing record, he faced inconvenience, harassment, stress and other trauma during that those periods; thence, he had filed the complaint before this Commission. The complainant is entitled for compensation.  The complainant has not brought any concrete evidence of proving compensation/damages of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed but considering totality of circumstances, it is quantified as Rs. 10,000/- to meet both ends of justice,   payable to complainant and against the OPs payable by them jointly and severally.

5.5 The complainant has claimed interest @ 18% pa,  however, there is no evidence to justify claim of interest @ 18% pa. Thus, keeping in view the contemporary period of 2019, it appropriate appears to us and in order  to  meet both ends of justice, to award simple interest @ 6% pa. from 03.01.2019 [being the date of filing of the complaint]  till the realization of the amount in favour of complainant and against OPs.

5.6  So far cost component is concerned, considering the  features of case as well as other circumstances, the complainant is a awarded costs of Rs.5000/-in his favour against the OPs.

5.7  The complainant had use expression 'unfair trade contract' loosely at one place in the complaint but throughout in the pleading, evidence and submissions. complainant has prosecuted for plea of  deficiency of services to emphasis that the OPs as Insurers have not performed its acts as expected of  an Insurer in rendering services for settlement of claim of complainant.  The complaint is accordingly decided. It is not a complainant of 'unfair trade contract'.

5.8  Accordingly,  complainant's complaint is disposed off while holding  and allowing his claim of Rs. 37,427/-[i.e Rs. 32,427/- on account of repairs plus damages of Rs.10,000/-] along with simple interest @ 6%pa from 3.1.2019 [being date of filing of complainant] till payment is made apart from  cost of Rs.5000/-  in favour of complainant and  against OP1 and OP2 to pay it jointly & severally. The OPs are directed to pay the amount within 30 days.

6. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of costs as per regulations.

 Announced on this 22th  day of  December 2022.

14.02.2023

CC No.-01/2019

File is taken up on application on behalf of complainant that there is typographical error in para 5.8 of order dated 22.12.2022 that in place of amount Rs. 42,427/-, amount of Rs. 37,427/- was mentioned, whereas, paragraph 5.8 itself gives the detail of Rs. 32,427/- plus Rs. 10,000/- but net figure was mentioned of Rs. 37,427/- in the first three line of paragraph 5.8.

Present: Shri Babul Biswas, Advocate for complainant

          Heard. On query, it is explained that complainant had received the copy of main order as well as it was also seen on confonet.

          The circumstances itself are clear that there is accidental typographical error, otherwise, paragraph 5.8 is based on conclusion in paragraph no. 5.4A. It does not need notice to opposite party, thus the clerical error of Rs. 37,427/- is rectified and corrected as Rs. 42,427/-. Accordingly, the correction is attested by us. The copy of main order along with this order be sent again to the parties to update them for all purposes. Dasti. File be consigned to record room.

                                       Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Central District,                                  

                                                         ISBT Building,  5th Floor,  Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

Complaint Case  No. 01/2019

                                                Versus

OP1   Oriental Insurance Company

          4E/14 Ground Floor,8390  Block E4.

          Azad Bhavan, Jhandewalan Extension,

          Jhandewalan  New Delhi-110055

OP2   Oriental Insurance Company

          Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road

            New Delhi-110002                                ...Opposite Party

Coram:

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

                                                ORDER-

Inder Jeet Singh

1.  (Introduction to case of parties) - There are allegations of deficiency in service as OPs had rejected complainant's insurance claim in respect of damages and repairs of his motor-cycle KTM RC 390 bearing registration no.DL3SCC 9559 (briefly vehicle). The complaint was filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Shri Mehul Katheria (hereinafter referred as  the complainant) seeks direction to the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as the OPs) to pay amount of Rs. 40,735/- towards amount spent on repairs of insured vehicle, apart from compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages on account of omission of respondent, mental trauma  & litigation expenses against the OPs. He also claims pendent-lite and future interest @ of 18%  p.a. till date of payment and costs. Whereas Opposite Parties/ Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred OPs or insurer) opposed the claim on the grounds that this Commission (Central District) lacks jurisdiction on subject complaint, there is delay of 9 days in informing of incident to the OPs and non-compliance of OP's letters dated  17.4.2017, 24.4.2017 and 16.5.017 by the Complainant for furnishing requisite information/record. As per policy condition no.3, the liability of insurance company shall not exceed the actual value of part of damage or loss less depreciation plus reasonable cost of fitting. Moreover, the loss was assessed by independent Government licenced surveyor for Rs.32,427/-, which is also subject to terms and conditions, for its compliance letters were issued to the Complainant, who failed to respond or comply them.

2.1 (Matrix of Complainant’s case)-  In nut-shell, the complainant was previously residing at H. No. K-13, Andrews Ganj Extension, Andrews Ganj, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110049.  On 27.07.2016 he bought the vehicle bearing Regn. no. DL 3S CC 9559 from KTM Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and got it registered on 30.7.2016, which was got insured from the OPs vide Insurance Policy no.272300/31/2017/3963. Insurance Code 74444704. The  registered office of OP is at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi The Complainant was studying in Pune. On 4.12017 a girl trying to cross road bumped into the vehicle of complainant, vehicle fell down and there was extensive damage. The vehicle was brought to KTM Sai Service Wagholi, Pune for necessary repairs. Since it happened in Pune, thus complainant immediately contacted and informed about episode to OP's Call Service representative, who advised to write it by email to OP with estimate of repairs.  Thus, on 13.1.2017, the complainant wrote email to Shri Kuldeep Singh at kuldeepsingh@orientalinsurance.co.in by furnishing claim form, estimate of repairs, copies driving licence and RC.  However, the complainant was asked to furnish copy of charge-sheet but police had not supplied it, thus complainant was constrained to wait till copy is provided to him by the Court, which took time, otherwise complainant was not arraigned in the  FIR, it was his own damage claim.  Despite of furnishing all papers, his claim was closed and he was advised to write to Branch Manager to re-open the case. Then, the complainant ran from pillar to post but his legitimate and valid claim was not settled and allowed.  He provided all requisite papers but claim was rejected,  whereas he is entitled for claim of Rs.40.735/- with interest towards the repairs. The OPs have no intentions to perform the agreement, there is deficiency of services and as a last resort, the complainant sent legal notice dated 12.12.2018 to the OP but no result, that is why the complaint was filed. The complaint is accompanied of the copies of policy, R/C, emails, estimate of repairs, copy of legal notice dt 12.12.2018 (along-with postal & courier receipts for sending it at OP's Branch/Centre at Jhandewalan Extension).  

2.2   (Case of OPs) -  OPs had filed their joint reply and opposed the claim vehemently. OPs opposed the claim on the grounds this Commission (Central District) lacks jurisdiction since policy was issued by OP's office at K-37 Connaught Circus New Delhi but complaint was filed in this Commission, it is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The policy issued was for Motor cycle Model 2016 for motorized two wheelers package policy for one year period w.e.f.27.07.2016 to 26.07.2017 for IDV Rs.2,02,866/- subject to various terms and condition inclusive of IMT-22 (i.e. Annex.R1 to the reply). It was 13.1.2017 when intimation of accident was given to OP's office by email, whereas accident had happened on 4.1.2017, there is delay of 9 days in informing of  incident to the OP's office. The OP's office at Pune deputed Surveyor Shri Ajit Navale to survey the matter, he visited workshop, met complainant and assessed the loss for Rs.32,427/- less salvage and furnished his report dated 11.2.2017 (Annex R2 to the reply).

       The complainant was also advised to complete the claim formalities for settlement of his claim, which were not completed by him..  The OPs' office in Delhi received claim papers with surveyor report,  it were processed and claim was approved, which was informed to the complainant by OP's letter dated  17.4.2017, to submit cash memos, discharge vouchers duly signed by him, failing which claim will be closed as 'no claim', it was not complied with. There was also no response of OPs' other letter dated 27.4.2017 and to final reminder dated 16.5.017, which was also not complied with, hence claim was closed as 'no claim' (three letters are Annex.R3 to the reply).

        As per policy condition no.3, the liability of insurance company shall not exceed the actual value of part damaged or lost less depreciation plus reasonable cost of fitting. Moreover, the loss was assessed by independent Government licenced surveyor for Rs.32,427/- subject to compliances of other terms and conditions, for which  letters were issued to the Complainant, who failed to respond or comply them. It is mandatory requirement of section 64UM of the Insurance Act that payment was to be released by OPs to the claimant after obtaining final bills/cash memo of the repairs of the vehicle as well as full and final discharge from him, which has not been complied with by the complainant.  There is no covenant for claim for loss or profit or for mental agony & pain in motor insurance  policy. The complainant is liable to dismissed.

2.3  (Replication of complainant)- The complainant filed replication to the  joint reply of OPs, reply was opposed while reaffirming his case in complaint of episode of incident, its information to OPs local office, issuing of policy. The complainant was never informed of letters for furnishing of cash memos, vouchers etc.

3. (Evidence of the parties)- The complainant Mehul Matheia filed his affidavit of evidence, while referring and relying upon the documents annexed with the complaint. It is on the lines of complaint. Whereas, Ms Monica, Sr Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-21, filed evidence by way of affidavit for OPs. It is also on the lines of reply to complaint. 

4.   (Submissions/arguments of the Parties)-  The complainant and the OPs had filed their respective written arguments, which are extracts from their pleadings and evidence. However, Shri Babul Vishwas, Advocate for complainant made oral submission and Shri Trivedi Praful, Advocate for OPs also made oral submissions on behalf of  OPs. It does not require to give its details here, as the same will be discussed point wise in order to appreciate rival contentions.

5.1     (Findings)- We have  considered the case of parties and  rival submissions, in the light of testimony of parties as well as  their documents. Before, leading to points in controversy,  there are some admitted facts (or undisputed fact) which are relevant to state as below:-

(i) the complainant got insured his vehicle no. DL3S CC 9559 by Policy no.272300/31/2017/3963 Insurance Code 74444704 for period 27.07.2016 to 26.07.2017 issued in favour of complainant in respect of  vehicle. The IDV is Rs.2,02,866/-.

(ii)  complainant's copy of policy is at page no.30 to the complaint and OPs' copy is Annex.R1.  In the policy issued to complainant, the  OPs' Registered office mentioned is Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road,  New Delhi-10002 and the Regional Office mentioned is Hansalya Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. One more address is also mentioned in rubber round seal at right top side of issuing office, this is dim seal impression bearing address etc. It also  mentions O-Debt [Zero-debt] policy.   The other copy of policy (Annex R1), address  mentioned of  issuing office is of K-3, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (being DO-21 New Delhi),

(iii) Report dated 11.2.2017 of surveyor Shri Ajit Navale reflecting details about date of survey, matter considered and assessed.

      After aforementioned conclusion, now other points of dispute are taken one by one, some of them have been raised on behalf of OPs.

5.2 (Point of territorial jurisdiction) -  There is rival contention on the point of jurisdiction as OPs' stand is that since insurance issuing office is in Connaught Circus, New Delhi,  it comes within the jurisdiction of New Delhi; thus the present Commission of Central District lacks territorial jurisdictions. Whereas, on the other side, complainant's contention is that his claim was processed and email correspondence was done at office located at Azad Bhavan, Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan  New Delhi-110055. The name of officer is Shri Kuldeep Singh, Manager . who communicated emails, his same address also finds mentioned in the correspondence exchanged. The address of OP1 is Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan  New Delhi-110055, it is within the jurisdiction of this Commission (Central District). Lastly,  the OPs had filed three letters (Annex. R3), [although they were never served upon the complainant nor complainant admits them], the said letter itself mentions OPs two addresses viz. (i)  Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110002 at bottom and (ii) DRO 4E/14 GF, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 at its top, both of these addresses have been mentioned in the complaint. Thus, this Commission (Central District) has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

5.2A    The rival contentions of both sides are to be  assessed on the basis of pleadings, documentary record and law. The submission of both the sides are based on document. At the out-set, the complaint was filed on 3.1.2019, at that time the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was prevalent. Section 11 of the Act 1986 is about Jurisdiction of District Commission,  to be on the basis of address of Opposite party [either of residence or business place or a branch office or personally work for gain] or on the basis of place where cause of action arises [either wholly or partly]. Therefore, on the basis of  this criteria, it may happen that jurisdiction of subject situation(s) may fall in one District or in more than one district.

       Since, the OPs' contention is that issuing office was in Connaught Circus, New Delhi, then it may be one of determinant for jurisdiction but not exclusive aspect as other aspect may be explored, particularly when there happens to be other area of jurisdiction.  As per copy of  policy issued to complainant, the Registered Office is of Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, that also determines the jurisdiction.  The correspondence by email was done between the parties, it was office of OPs located at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, which also find mentioned in the three letter [Annex.R-3 being relied upon by the OPs], apart from address of Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.  Moreover, Shri Kuldeep Singh, Manager of OP had made correspondence from Jhandewalan Extension office to complainant  through e-mail. Further, the Paragraph no.6 of complaint mentions e-mail address of Shri Kuldeep Singh, where complainant lodged his claim form, estimate for repairs, driving licence and registration certificate, these facts were not denied by the OPs in their joint reply. It is also not the plea of OPs that these record were not received in Divisional Office of Jhandewalan, Delhi. Since OPs has 'Service Centre Regional Office-2', at 4E/14, GF Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, doing its business of insurance as well as complainant had also lodged the claim there,  which was rejected by them.  Thus from the point of place of business as well as place of arising of cause of action is the office of Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Therefore, this Commission (Central District) has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. This point stand decided in favour of complainant and against the OPs. After determination of point of jurisdiction, now the other points of dispute are taken.

5.3 (Point of delay & non-compliance) - The next contention of OPs is that there was delay of 9 days to inform incident on 13.1.2017, which had happened earlier, which is in violation of terms of contract. The OPs' appointed surveyor had carried investigation and survey, then compensation was determined of Rs.32,727/- but it was subject to compliances requisitioned, however, the complainant failed to respond or comply the three letters issued, consequently the claim of Rs,32,727/- was closed as 'no claim'. Whereas, the other side has reservations that complainant was doing the things promptly, he immediately informed OPs' call service representative, who advised to furnish estimate etc. with claim form by email, which were accordingly furnished. The said three letters being relied upon by the OPs are manipulated by the OPs in their office as on the face of it, there is no diary number,   no proof of postal receipts of dispatch or record of service are furnished and in order the deny legitimate and valid claim of the complainant, the said fabricated copies were filed. The acts of the OPs are mala-fide, contrary to law and expectation of an insurer.

5.3A    On analysis of this rival contention, it needs to refer the record. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of complainant as well as paragraph 7 and 8 of the evidence of complainant, the complainant specifically deposed that he informed the local call service representative, that is why surveyor was appointed.  When, he also got estimate of repairs and then sent it with claim form, the estimate of repairs was made available are of 12.1.2017,  he had sent by email of 13.1.2017, which was in continuation of earlier advices given to him. It cannot be construed being adjudged by OPs.

      It is matter of record that there is no proof of dispatch and service of three letters/Annex R3 by office of OPs being relied upon, consequently for want of proof of its dispatch and service, it cannot be concluded or presumed that letters were served and to prejudice the complainant to suffer for want of occasion of compliance. Thus, this issue is also determined against the OPs that there was deliberate delay or non-compliance.

5.4 (Point of claim of repairs & compensation)  - Now the point left to be decided is in respect of claim of repairs, amount of  compensation , interest and cost of litigation. On the one side, the complainant has pleaded his case in the form of complaint and he had also led the evidence coupled with documents, which were filed with the complaint.. Whereas on the other side, the OPs opposed the entire claim for want of compliances as well as the compensation determined by surveyor is also subject to certain compliance, apart from entire amount of parts cannot be allowed as the same is also subject to depreciated value of parts of vehicle, salvage, etc. There is no scope of claim of compensation in motor vehicle policy.

5.4A    The answer of this dispute also existing in the record, it is being explored. The complainant had furnished the estimates, which were considered by the surveyor in his report dated 11.2.2017 by considering the value of spares in the estimates and correspondingly assessing depreciated value of spares to this situation of this case, the amount assessed of spares is (i.e.Rs.32,727/-) lesser than the estimate (of Rs.39,027/-).  Similarly, other component of labour was also assessed as compare to estimates, the amount assessed is (i.e. Rs.3220/-) also lesser than estimates (of Rs.7,302/-).  Then, amount of compensation assessed was communicated to the insurer/OPs by the surveyor in his report in respect of repairs and fittings.

     However, the OPs had mentioned amount of Rs. 32,427/- (i.e Rs.32,727/- less salvage of Rs,300/-) to be entitled by complainant subject to other compliances.  Since IDV of motor cycle as Rs.2,02,866/-, duly recorded in the subject policy, therefore, the complainant is held entitled for amount of Rs.32,427/- on account of repairs against the OPs, which was not released to complainant  by the OPs.

5.4B.  The OPs have strong plea that concept of compensation is alien to motor vehicle policy, whereas compensation is not being claimed from motor vehicle policy but for harassment and other trauma  suffered by complainant for want of settlement of valid claim. The correspondence exchanged also speaks a lot, as to how the complainant was prosecuting his claim in the office of OPs prior to his filing the complainant, besides sending the legal notice, which was also served by registered post & courier in its office at Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. The denial of release of legitimate and valid claim, despite convincing record, he faced inconvenience, harassment, stress and other trauma during that those periods; thence, he had filed the complaint before this Commission. The complainant is entitled for compensation.  The complainant has not brought any concrete evidence of proving compensation/damages of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed but considering totality of circumstances, it is quantified as Rs. 10,000/- to meet both ends of justice,   payable to complainant and against the OPs payable by them jointly and severally.

5.5 The complainant has claimed interest @ 18% pa,  however, there is no evidence to justify claim of interest @ 18% pa. Thus, keeping in view the contemporary period of 2019, it appropriate appears to us and in order  to  meet both ends of justice, to award simple interest @ 6% pa. from 03.01.2019 [being the date of filing of the complaint]  till the realization of the amount in favour of complainant and against OPs.

5.6  So far cost component is concerned, considering the  features of case as well as other circumstances, the complainant is a awarded costs of Rs.5000/-in his favour against the OPs.

5.7  The complainant had use expression 'unfair trade contract' loosely at one place in the complaint but throughout in the pleading, evidence and submissions. complainant has prosecuted for plea of  deficiency of services to emphasis that the OPs as Insurers have not performed its acts as expected of  an Insurer in rendering services for settlement of claim of complainant.  The complaint is accordingly decided. It is not a complainant of 'unfair trade contract'.

5.8  Accordingly,  complainant's complaint is disposed off while holding  and allowing his claim of Rs. 42,427/-[i.e Rs. 32,427/- on account of repairs plus damages of Rs.10,000/-] along with simple interest @ 6%pa from 3.1.2019 [being date of filing of complainant] till payment is made apart from  cost of Rs.5000/-  in favour of complainant and  against OP1 and OP2 to pay it jointly & severally. The OPs are directed to pay the amount within 30 days.

6. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of costs as per regulations.

 Announced on this 22th  day of  December 2022.