BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No : 1217 of 2009

Date of Institution:   26.08.2009

Date of  Decision  :   16.12.2009

J.S. Randhawa, Resident of H.No. 313, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 109-110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh – 160017.

3.   The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 10-A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh – 160019, through its Manager (Claims Department).

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

          SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA        MEMBER

          DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL     MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Adv. for Complainant.

 Sh.D.C. Kumar, Adv. for OPs.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

         Concisely put, the Complainant got his Cielo car bearing Regn. No. DL 3C H 1643 comprehensively insured with the OP vide Cover Note Ex.C-1. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.11.2006, while it was driven by the driver of the Complainant – Malkiat Singh. OP was immediately informed about the accident. Pursuant to which a Surveyor was appointed, who in his report estimated the total damage to the tune of Rs.93,418.75P, however, the amount assessed by him was to the tune of Rs.14,724.50P. It was alleged that thereafter when no claim was paid, the Complainant made several rounds to the office of OP – Insurance Company, but he was informed that claim process was still underway. When no response was forthcoming, he issued a legal notice dated 24.10.2008 to the OPs, but to no avail. Finally, he sought information with regard to his claim under the RTI Act, whereupon, he was informed that his claim was closed. According to him closing the claim without any written intimation or any repudiation letter being sent, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.     

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]       In their written reply, the OPs pleaded that the registered owner of the vehicle was Audio Centre and the policy was never issued in the name of the Complainant. It was admitted that Complainant did inform about the vehicle being driven by Malkiat Singh. It was also admitted that upon intimation, a Surveyor was appointed for assessment of the loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.13,724.25P. It was asserted that the Complainant was to submit cash memos and bills of repairs and parts purchased as per the report submitted by the Surveyor, which he failed to supply and it was on account of that, the claim was closed. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record

6]        The OP has not disputed that the vehicle was insured with it and the IDV of the same was 45,000/-. When the car met with an accident the claim was submitted with the OP and a surveyor was appointed who submitted his report Annexure C-3. The OP however did not pay any compensation to the complainant. The first ground taken up by the OP is that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle and therefore he has no insurable interest in it and is not entitled to compensation.  We do not find any merit in this argument.  Annexure C-1 is the Insurance policy showing that the complainant is the insured.  This objection should have been taken by the OP on the date of which Annexure C-1 was issued that the complainant was getting the vehicle of somebody else insured. However, they did not object to it and received the premium from the complainant and insured the vehicle which was standing in the name of Audio Centre,13 Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The OP now cannot be permitted to withdraw the said undertaking of indemnifying the complainant for the damage if any caused to the said vehicle.  Otherwise also for claiming compensation the ownership is not necessary as was held in case Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. B.K.Sethi and another III (2004) CPJ 11 (NC).  It was held in another case titled Escorts JCB Limited  Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, AIR(2002) Supreme Court 3708, that one can get the property of other person insured and there is no bar under the Insurance Act to this proposition.  We are therefore of the opinion that the claim could not be denied on this ground.

7]        The next argument of the Learned Counsel for the OP is that the accident took place on 15.11.06 but the present complaint was filed on 26.08.09 and the same is accordingly barred by time.  This argument is also devoid of merit. It is admitted that the claim was being processed and had not been repudiated so far.  The OP have not placed any such intimation, document or order on the file to suggest if the claim was repudiated or closed by them. When the matter was being delayed the complainant obtained the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and received the documents vide letter Annexure C-5 dated 7.07.09.  It was then that the complainant came to know that his case has been “closed” though no such intimation has so far been given to him.  Limitation would therefore start from 7.07.09 and the present complaint dated 26.08.09 would be within time.  The authority Sudama Lal Madhwani  Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, II (2007) CPJ 144 (NC) is not applicable in the present case because in that case letter of repudiation was sent by the Insurance Company and the complaint was not filed within 2 years of the receipt of the said letter. It is not so in the present case.

8]        The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that the claim was submitted by the complainant for payment of Rs.93,418.75P but OPs passed the same for Rs.14,724.50P only. There is the report Annexure C-3 of the surveyor who has allowed the claim only to the extent of Rs.14,724.50P minus(-) salvage which is valued at Rs.1,000/-.  There is no reason to differ with the report Annexure C-3.

9]        In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.13,724.50P with interest @8% p.a. since 5.04.07(one month, after the verification of R/C of the said vehicle was sent to D.O.I, New Delhi) till the amount is paid to the complainant along with Rs.2,200/-  as costs of litigation. The entire amount is to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the date of the filing of the present complaint i.e.26.08.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

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