Haryana

Kurukshetra

234/2018

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Karanvir Singh

25 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.234 of 2018.

Date of instt.:30.10.2018.            

 Date of Decision:25.11.2019.

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Mahinder Singh, resident of H.No.265/7, Shastri Colony, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Ist Floor Insurance Point, Opp. State Bank of India, Ambala Road Pehowa, through its Branch Manager.

 

..………Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Karanvir Singh, Advocate for complainant.               

Smt. Purnima Malhotra, Advocate for opposite party.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kuldeep Singh against United India Insurance Company Limited, the opposite party.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant has purchased one TATA Safari 2.2 LX 4x2 Dicor bearing Registration No.HR07N-6835 from one Amarjit Singh son of Gurjang Singh, resident of village Thaska Miranji, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and the ownership has been transferred in his name. The above said vehicle has been insured with the OP. On 30.1.2017, the said vehicle met with an accident at Panipat and in this regard a DDR No.8 has been registered through Harman Preet Singh son of Kuldeep Singh complainant. The vehicle was badly damaged in the accident and is not repairable. That the complainant gave intimation regarding this accident to the OP on 30.1.2017 and thereafter surveyor got inspected the above said vehicle and sent his report to the OP. As per the report, the insurance company has to pay Rs.2,74,000/- to the complainant, but till today despite repeated requests, the OP had not paid a single penny to the complainant. Thus, there is great deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppal, jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. It is submitted that vehicle was insured with OP and same met with an accident and due procedure was followed in order to satisfy the claim of complainant and it has settled his claim for all intents and purposes in total sum of Rs.2,74,000/-. The complainant has also sworn an affidavit dated 3.4.2018. So, in continuation of that affidavit, a letter dated 22.5.2018 was sent to the claimant through registered post in which it was clearly mentioned that claim of complainant has been approved and he was required to provide the cancellation certificate of registration form from the concerned registration authority, but the complainant has failed to submit the same. Hence, the claim of complainant was closed for want of said documents. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure CW1/B to Ex.CW1/H and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that duly insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Panipat badly damaged. The complainant gave intimation regarding this accident to the OP on 30.1.2017 and surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report and as per that report, the insurance company has to pay Rs.2,74,000/- to the complainant, but till today despite repeated requests, the OP had not paid a single penny to the complainant. He further argued that the OP written a letter dated 22.5.2018 Ex.R-2 to provide the cancellation certificate of registration certificate from the concerned registering authority. After that, the complainant applied for the same and the said registering authority vide letter dated 28.9.2018 Annexure CW1/H ordered to cancel the registration certificate of the vehicle in question and a copy of that letter was also sent to the OP by the said registering authority, therefore, there is no delay on the part of the complainant. As such, the OP is deficient by not paying the settled/approved amount to the complainant. To support his contention, he tendered copy of emails as Mark A, B and receipt as Mark C on the case file. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon case law titled Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur, 1997 (2) CLT, Page No.634, decided by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the claim of the complainant was approved to the tune of Rs.2,74,000/- subject to provide the cancellation certificate of registration form from the concerned registration authority, but the complainant has failed to submit the same. Hence, the claim of complainant was closed for want of said documents. In support of her contention, she placed reliance upon case laws titled Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & 2 others, CC No.549 of 2018, d.o.d. 21.12.2018 (NC, New Delhi) and Ashok Kumar Agrawal Vs. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Appeal No.726/2014, d.o.d. 07.11.2017 (NC, New Delhi).

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the claim of the complainant was assessed on total loss basis to the tune of Rs.2,74,000/- by the surveyor of the OP, vide report Annexure CW1/F and the OP was ready to pay the said amount to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant has given his duly sworn affidavit dated 03.4.2018 Ex.R1. However, it may not be out of place to mention here that in the said affidavit Ex.R-1, there is nothing mentioned regarding cancellation of the registration certificate. But on 22.5.2018, the OP wrote a letter Ex.R-2 to the complainant asking him to provide the cancellation certificate of RC from the registration authority enabling to release the payments, which is not justifiable. Nevertheless, the complainant applied for the same and vide order dated 28.9.2018 Annexure CW1/H, the Registration Authority (MV) cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Pehowa ordered to cancel the RC of the vehicle in question. The said authority has also sent a copy of this order to the OP, meaning thereby, the OP got information about the cancelation of the RC in question. But, now the OP refused to release the approved/settled amount of Rs.2,74,000/- to the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to submit the cancellation certificate of the RC of the vehicle in question to the OP. However, the complainant waited for about one month i.e. from 28.9.2018 to 30.10.2018 (date of filing the present complaint) for payment of settled amount from the OP, but the OP did not pay the same. As such, the complainant was left with no other option except to file the present complaint on 30.10.2018.

9.             The complainant produced copy of conversation of one Harmanpreet Singh with Gurdeep Minhas, surveyor (Mark-A on the case file) intimating him that file of safari (complainant’s claim file) got misplaced, upon which, the said surveyor was shocked to hear that. Moreover, the complainant made a complaint Mark-B in this regard to the customer-care of the OP. So, from the above, it is clear that the complainant has no role in delay in cancellation of the RC from the registering authority. So, there was delay on the part of the OP only in processing the claim of the complainant. For the sake of discussion, if it can be presumed that there was delay on the part of the complainant in cancellation of the RC in time, due to which, his claim could not be processed till today, in processing his claim, even then, the OP cannot backed out from his commitment and cannot deny to pay the amount to the complainant ‘already settled/approved, so the OP is deficient one. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.2,74,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest, for the period the amount remained with it. Our view is supported by the case law titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh has held that “Insurance claim- Delay in settlement- claim for interest- Held that even if there was some delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the necessary information, the LIC liable to pay interest for the period, the amount remained with it – The delay per se in settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency in service – Order of the District Forum regarding rate of interest modified from 15% to 12%. The case law produced by the complainant, is fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas, on the other hand, the case laws produced by the OP are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case being rested on different footings. Keeping in view the case law referred to above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is deficient in providing the services to the complainant and thus, is liable to pay the settled/approved amount alongwith interest to the complainant.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To pay the settled amount of Rs.2,74,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 30.10.2018 i.e. the date of the filing the present complaint, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses

                The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:25.11.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.