Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/979/2019

Sh. Aditya Vikram Newar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal Adv.

13 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	979/2019
Date of Institution	:	24.09.2019
Date of Decision	:	13.07.2023

 

                     

            

 

Sh.Aditya Vikram Newar r/o H.no.168, Sector 6, District Panchkula (Haryana).

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.  The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2.  The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Director, Regd. Office at 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Ms.Bijuli Sinha, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Counsel of OPs.

   

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that he is the owner of Indica Car Model 2011 bearing registration No.HR-03N-5138, which was comprehensively insured with OP-Company w.e.f. 20-12-10-2016 to 19-12-2017 for an IDV of Rs.2,50,000 against the premium of Rs.4672/-. On 17-05-2017, when the complainant was going to Solan along with his paid driver namely Sh.Jatinder Singh, son of Sh.Krishan Lal one car bearing registration No.HR-01-AH-7433, which was coming from Shimla side, dashed into the car of the complainant as result which the occupants of both vehicles suffered injuries and they were taken to the Civil Hospital from where they were taken for treatment to Solan and subsequently to Shimla (H.P.). The complainant alleged that he & his driver suffered injuries due to accident, so they could not inform the police but somebody from the crowd informed the police who registered the FIR bearing No.57/17 dated 31-05-2017 under Sections 279, 337 IPC P.S.Dharmpur, District Solan, against the driver of the complainant instead of the driver of the car bearing registration No.HR-01-AH-7433. After discharge from the hospital and recovery from the injuries and depression, the complainant informed the OPs about the accident who appointed the Surveyor for spot inspection and later on the loss was assessed by the Loss Assessor-Sh.Jaspreet Singh Mehta. The complainant wrote a letter to the Manager of the Insurance Company at Chandigarh where the claims  are submitted and the same was duly acknowledged on the said date. It was informed that due to accident, his back bone, shoulder and arm muscles were severely ruptured and that he was still on bed at that time. It was further stated that the complainant could not submit the documents and furnish the formalities due to the above and requested the OPs to expedite the claim as the car was made the case property and it is still lying in the custody of the Dharmpur Police Station, so he could not take it to the Authorized Dealer for its necessary repairs and estimate. The complainant alleged that the surveyor of the OPs after inspection of car in question was fully convinced that the same could not be repaired and is a total loss case. The surveyor took the photographs of the car,  recorded the statement of the complainant and his driver, necessary documents including the driving licence of the complainant and his driver namely Sh.Jatinder Singh were received by him. The complainant wrote repeated letters to the OPs to release the claim but to no effect.  Further the complainant alleged that he was told to submit his claim to the Head Office of the OP in Sector 17-B, Chandigarh and accordingly he submitted the same on 08-02-2019 but nothing concrete happened in the matter. The complainant alleged that there is an inordinate delay in settling the claim which amounts to deficiency in service.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund Rs.2,50,000/- on account of total loss of vehicle in question along with interest at the rate of 12% per month w.e.f. 17.11.2017, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs; the complaint is not maintainable for want of non-joinder of proper necessary parties; this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction as the insurance policy has been obtained from Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh; there is violation of the terms and conditions on the part of the complainant by not informing  the OPs about the accident in time as the accident took place on 17-05-2017 whereas intimation was given on 11.09.2017; the complaint is not maintainable being barred by limitation as it is filed after two years from the last date of cause of action. On merits, the OPs denied all the allegations made by the complainant and lastly, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
5.     The main allegation of the complainant in the present complaint is that the OPs have not indemnified him despite having a valid insurance policy from 20-12-2016 to 19-12-2017 in respect of the vehicle in question i.e. Indica Car model 2011 bearing registration No.HR-03N-5138 on account of accidental loss suffered by him on 17.05.2017. The OPs have taken a preliminary objection that complainant has not informed the Company about the accident in time but quite late. This objection is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the complainant had suffered from injuries and was admitted to hospital. After recovering from the physical injuries and discharge from hospital, he informed the OPs about the accident. Moreover, somebody from the crowd informed the concerned police and got the FIR registered in the concerned Police Station. Hence, the delay in informing the OPs on account of his physical injuries cannot be said to be a valid ground for the denial of insurance claim to the complainant.
6.     Further the OPs took the preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed within limitation, but there is nothing on record to show that the OPs informed the complainant about the repudiation of the claim. When the OPs themselves failed to inform the complainant about the repudiation of the claim then the period of limitation cannot be counted on account of pendency of the claim with the OPs.
7.     The third preliminary objection taken by the OPs is that the complaint is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The OPs took the objection that the policy of insurance was taken at Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh and no cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh. Hence, this Commission at Chandigarh has no power to try and adjudicate upon the present complaint. The OPs relied upon judgment ‘Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co Ltd’ 1V (2009) CPJ 40 (SC). The judgment relied upon by the OPs is not applicable to the present case because in Sonic Surgical’s case the cause of action arose in 1999 and the complaint was filed in 2000 i.e. before the Amendment Act 2003, hence the benefit of amendment could not be granted to the complainant in that complaint. But in the present complaint, there is a Branch Office of the OPs at Chandigarh and a part of cause of action arose when the loss assessor namely, Sh.Jaspreet Singh Mehta issued letter dated 5th  February 2018 to the complainant and its copy is referred to the Incharge Claims  Hub, R.O. Sector-17, Chandigarh for information and record. It shows that Branch Office at Sector 17. Chandigarh is dealing with the issue in hand. So this Commission has got the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the present subject matter. Importantly, the Loss Assessor, namely, Sh.Jaspreet Singh Mehta in his Motor Final Survey Report dated 07-06-2018 assessed the loss of Rs.83,201/- (Annexure R1-2/C).
8.         In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.83,201/-  to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realization.
9.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 13/07/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER