Haryana

Karnal

CC/356/2019

Rashpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Gupta

17 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 356 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.18.06.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:17.05.2022

 

Rashpal son of Shri Mathura Dass, resident of House no.122, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, backside Old Bus Stand, Karnal.

2.     M/s Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized person, 71/3, Mile Stone, NH-1, Karnal.

3.     Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Vinod Kumar, counsel for complainant.

Shri Ramesh Chaudhry, counsel for the OP no.1.

OP no.2 exparte.

Shri A.K. Vohra, counsel for the OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a car, Vitara Brezza VDI, for his personal use, from the OP no.2 for an amount of Rs.8,21,590/-, vide invoice no.VSL18000320 dated 29.06.2018. OP no.2 charged a sum of Rs.68360/- towards the registration of vehicle and vehicle was registered, vide registration no.HR-05AY-5306. OP no.2 further charged a sum of Rs.27937/- towards the insurance of the said vehicle and the OP no.2 has got a tie up with OP no.3 and OP no.1 and as such, the abovesaid car was got insured with OP no.1. OP no.2 further charged a sum of Rs.2990/- and Rs.15566/- towards the accessories and issued the counter sales tax invoices for the same, on 30.06.2018. The vehicle, so purchased, was stolen near Allahabad Bank, Padam Nagar, on the intervening night of 30/31.12.2018 and the First Information Report bearing no.046452 dated 31.12.2018 was got lodged in e-police station (Sarai Rohila, North District), District: Crime Branch, Delhi, by Shri Kewal Krishan son of Shri Om Parkash, the real sister’s son of the complainant. The intimation of the theft of the vehicle was given to the OP no.1 and on receiving intimation, investigator namely Jeevan Aggarwal, from Delhi, investigated the matter and submitted the investigation report to the OP no.1. The court of Shri Bhupinder Singh, ACMM-01, Central District Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi, accepted the untrace report submitted by SHO. After the submission of untrace report, the file was sent from Delhi office to Karnal office of OP no.1 and OP no.1 appointed another investigator namely Shri Gurmit Singh, approved insurance investigator, who again obtained the documents and information for the complainant, which was provided by the complainant to him and she submitted the report to OP no.1. It is further averred that inspite of submission of report by the two investigating agencies, OP no.1 was not satisfied and have appointed another agency under the name and style of Karnal Associates, which is unwarranted, un-ethical, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. In case, the officials of OP no.1 were not satisfied with the reports of earlier two Investigating Agencies, whether any notice issued by OP no.1 or any action for black-listing or de-paneling the earlier two Investigating Agencies, has been issued by the officials of OP no.1, which leads towards the conclusion of corrupt practices for and on behalf of the officials of OP no.1. The act and conduct of the officials of OP no.1 of non-passing of claim of the complainant against the policy in question, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.9,17,887/- (i.e. Rs.8,21,590/- cost of the vehicle in question, Rs.68360/- for registration of vehicle and Rs.27937/- towards the purchase of cashless bumper to bumper, zero depth policy), alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; non-joinder of necessary party. On merits, it is pleaded that present complaint is not maintainable being premature as the complainant has filed the case during investigation/process of the theft claim case. The claim has never been repudiated by the OP, rather the competent authority/OP has approved the claim on total loss basis for Rs.8,86,662/- i.e. Rs.8,21,590/- insurance value+ Rs.66072/- road tax 1000 less excess clause, subject to completion of certain formalities at the end of complainant. Though the complainant completed the formality but the same are under protest and subject to the decision of this Commission. Despite the repeated request, the complainant un-necessarily denied to remove the objections. Now the OP no.1 has again called the complainant to complete the formalities i.e. issuing discharge voucher, subrogation letter etc. without protest. After the completion of formalities the OP will deposit the above mentioned claim amount in the loan account of the complainant with Indian Overseas Bank, Karnal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 21.08.2019 passed by this Commission.

4.             OP no.3 in his reply stated that the role of the OP being a facilitator is to apprise the customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various insurance companies. After this facilitation, customers buy insurance as per their own will and pays insurance premium which goes to the concerned insurance company only, in lieu of the premium received, insurance company insures the vehicle and issues insurance policy subject to their own terms and conditions/IRDAI guidelines. It is further pleaded that the policy issuance, cancellation, appointment of surveyors for claim investigation and assessment and acceptance of repudiation of claims is the sole prerogative of the concerned insurance company only. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question insured with the OP no.1, hence they are answerable, if at all, to the complainant, for the alleged insurance claim, if lawfully found due. The answering OP has no role to play in the present dispute and the name of the answering OP is liable to be deleted for the array of the parties.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of vehicles particulars Ex.C1, copy of vehicle and charges invoice Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of order dated 11.02.2019 Ex.C4, copy of Tax Invoice Ex.C5, copy of sale tax invoice Ex.C6, sale certificate Ex.C7, copies of receipts Ex.C8 to Ex.C10, copy of repossessed letter Ex.C11, copy of Registration Certificate Ex.C12, copy of Form 51 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 Ex.C13, copy of application dated 29.05.2019 Ex.C14, copy of postal receipts Ex.C15 and Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant on 01.03.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sanjiv Madan, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of investigation report of Eminent Support Services Pvt. Ltd. dated 26.03.2019 Ex.OP1, copy of investigation report of Gurmeet Singh dated 15.04.2019 Ex.OP2, copy of letter to Rashpal dated 27.05.2019 Ex.OP3, letter to complainant dated 25.06.2019 Ex.OP4, copy of investigation report dated 12.07.2019 of Karnal Associates Ex.OP5, copy of list of documents/keys submitted by complainant on 07.08.2019 Ex.OP6, copy of letter to RTO dated 07.08.2019 (alongwith receipt) Ex.OP7, copy of letter to SHO dated 07.08.2019 (alongwith receipt) Ex.OP8, copy of vehicle particulars Ex.OP9, copy of court order dated 11.02.2019 regarding untrace report Ex.OP10, copy of NCRB report dated 13.08.2019 Ex.OP11, copy of report of RTA dated 26.08.2019 Ex.OP12, copy of discharge voucher Ex.OP13, copy of recommended claim dated 29.07.2019 Ex.OP14, copy of approved claim Ex.OP15, copy of letter of undertaking dated 29.08.2019 Ex.OP16, copy of subrogation form dated 29.08.2019 Ex.OP17, copy of letter of indemnity Ex.OP18, copy of payment receipts Ex.OP19 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP no.1 on 14.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surendra Srivastava CEO Ex.OP1/A, copy of certificate of renewal of licence Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 19.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

11.           It is evident from the discharge voucher Ex.OP13 that during the pendency of the complaint, OP no.1 has disbursed the claim amount of Rs.8,86,662/- to the complainant under protest.

12.           Now the dispute is only with regard to interest on the claim amount paid by the OP no.1, compensation on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.

13.           The vehicle in question was stolen on 31.12.2018. On receipt of the information with regard to stolen of the vehicle in question, OP no.1 had appointed investigator namely Jeevan Aggarwal on 31.12.2018 and he submitted his report on 26.03.2019 after delay of approximately three months.

14.           Thereafter, OP no.1 had appointed second investigator namely Gurmit Singh who has submitted his report on 15.04.2019.

15.           After that, OP no.1 had again appointed Karnal Associates, Investigating and Detective Agency for investigation the matter and said agency submitted his report on 12.07.2019. All the above three investigators have reached to the conclusion that vehicle in question has been stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

16.           It is admitted by the OP no.1 that intimation was given by the complainant within time and FIR was also lodged on the same day. Investigator was also appointed by the OP on the very next day. The claim of the complainant has been lingered on by the OP on one pretext or the other. As per observation under Clause 5 of Insurance Regularly and Development Authority Regulation, the surveyor report should be submitted by the surveyor within 30 days of his appointment unless in special circumstances of the case either due to its special and complicated nature whereby he seeks extension for submission of report and on receipt of surveyor report, the OP should settle the claim within 30 days. In this regard, we are fortified from the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mutha Associates Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2017 (2) CLT page 582 wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that the insurer on receipt of the insurance claim is supposed to appoint a surveyor within 72 hours and the surveyor is required to submit his report within 30 days of his appointment unless in special circumstances of the case either due to its special and complicated nature he seeks extension for submission of report. However, in no case surveyor is entitled to take more than six months from the date of his appointed to furnish the report. Clause 5 of Insurance Regularly and Development Authority Regulation, 202 quoted above provides that the insurer on receipt of final report of the surveyor is required to settle the insurance claim within 30 days from the date of receipt. The payment to the insured has to be made within 7 days of the acceptance of offer of settlement. Clause 9(6) of the above regulations provides that in case of delay in payment the insurer is liable to pay interest at the rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by the insurer. Similar, view had been taken by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Madan Lal Gupta Vs. National Insurance co. Ltd. 2017 (2) CLT page 156 (NC).

17.           The said authorities are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Neither surveyors/investigators of the OP has submitted his report within 30 days nor OP has settled the claim within 30 days on receipt of surveyor report as there is no reason to delay the submission of the survey report as well as settle the claim.

18.           Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

                It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy.

19.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the complaint, we are of the considered view that acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 20.          Admittedly, OP no.1 had paid Rs.8,86,662/- to the complainant on 06.12.2019. The complainant is entitled for the interest on the abovesaid amount, alongwith compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

21.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to pay the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.18.06.2019 till deposition of claim amount by the OP no.1 i.e. 06.12.2019.  We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Dated:17.05.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                           Member                          Member