Punjab

Sangrur

CC/578/2014

Rajesh Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Bhushan Kumar

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    578

                                                Instituted on:      07.10.2014

                                                Decided on:       10.03.2015

 

 

Rajesh Bansal son of Shri Qimat Rai Bansal C/o N.B. Steel Ball Industry, Bagrian Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, above Bank of Baroda, Opposite SDM Residence, The Mall, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, 3^rd Floor, SCO-96, Opposite Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Bhushan Kumar, Advocate.

For OPs No.1            :       Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rajesh Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his Verna car model 2009 having registration number PB-13-V-4507 from OP number 1 for the period from 1.9.2013 to 31.8.2014, but the OP number 1 did not supply the terms and conditions along with the policy.  The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident and damaged on 10.5.2014 near village Alamgir Dhuri Road Ludhiana, of which DDR number 12 dated 10.5.2014 was lodged by Ashok Bansal in police Chowki Merado, PS Sadar, Ludhiana and the complainant also gave intimation to OP number 1 for appointment of surveyor. It is further averred that the complainant got prepared the estimate of repair from Hyundai Motors, Mehlan Road, Sangrur to the tune of Rs.5,27,638/-.  It is further averred that it was a total loss car as the value of the loss was more than the insured value of the car. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the surveyor has submitted his report by assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.1,69,006/-. But, despite that the OP number 1 did not pay the claim to the complainant, rather sent a letter dated 25.8.2014 whereby repudiating the claim on the ground that the complainant has concealed material facts about the existence of the claim on the previous policy.  It is further averred that the complainant apprised the OP number 1 that he never received any on damage claim from the previous insurer i.e. OP number 2, but OP number 1 flatly refused to pay the claim.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OP number 1 be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,69,006/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 10.5.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the car of the complainant bearing registration number PB-13-V-4507 is insured with OP for the period from 1.9.2013 to 31.08.2014 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for Rs.4,50,000/-. It is further averred that the terms and conditions as well as policy of the vehicle was supplied to the complainant immediately.  It is further averred that  OP number 1 sent a letter dated 4.9.2013 to OP number 2 for confirmation of ‘no claim bonus’, but did not receive any response from it.  Thereafter the OP appointed M/s. Eminent Surveyors, who submitted its report dated 9.7.2014 whereby the loss was assessed for Rs.1,69,006/- on cash loss basis. It is stated that the complainant claimed ‘no claim bonus’ wrongly by stating that no claim has arisen under the expiring policy. It is further stated that the complainant claimed 20% bonus on account of NCB for which he was not entitled.  On the confirmation of NCB from the previous insurer i.e. Op number 2, it is noted that the complainant has reported claim on the previous insurance policy of the said vehicle, meaning thereby the complainant concealed the facts to take the undue monetary benefits on the policy for which he was not entitled.   It is stated that OP number 1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.8.2014. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no insurance coverage of vehicle on the date of alleged loss i.e. 10.5.2014, hence the complainant is not a  consumer and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  Regarding the claim lodged with the OP number 2 i.e. date of loss as 15.1.2013, no payment was made by the OP number 2 against the said claim as it was a minor claim and the same was withdrawn by the complainant vide letter dated 3.5.2013 and the claim was closed as no claim.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.   

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-3 copy of policy issued by Op number 2 and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP1/2 copy of policy, Ex.OP1/3 & Ex.OP1/4 copies of letters, Ex.OP1/5 and Ex.OP1/6 copies of emails, Ex.OP1/7 copy of survey report, Ex.OP1/8 copy of email, Ex.OP1/9 copy of claim inquiry, Ex.OP1/10 copy of email and Ex.OP1/11 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of policy, Ex.OP2/3 copy of letter dated 3.5.2013, Ex.OP2/4 copy of letter dated 3.5.2013 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured his Verna car having registration number PB-13-V-4507 with OP number 1 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 10.5.2014 near Village Alamgir of which DDR number 12 dated 10.5.2014 was lodged in Police Chowki Merado, PS Sadar, Ludhiana.   The learned counsel for the complainant though the vehicle in question was total loss, but the surveyor of the OP assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,69,006/- only. But, that amount was also not paid by the OP to the complainant despite his best efforts and repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the flimsy ground that the complainant wrongly claimed ‘no claim bonus @ 20%’ at the time of getting the insurance of the vehicle in question from OP number 1, whereas the complainant has lodged the claim with the previous insurer i.e. OP number 2.  As such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the contract of insurance has become void-ab-initio.  The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has further contended that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since no claim amount was settled and received by the complainant from OP number 2, as such, there is no effect of the previous minor accident of the vehicle in question.  A bare perusal of para (vii) of the reply submitted by OP number 2 also shows that the claim lodged by the complainant with the previous insurer i.e. OP number 2 was withdrawn by the complainant.  Para (vii) of the written reply filed by OP number 2 is reproduced as “That sub Para vii) of the complaint is matter of record. It is for the complainant to give strict proof for the same. The claim was lodged with date of loss as 15.01.2013 qua the previous policy of replying opposite party but no payment was made by the replying opposite party against said claim as it was a minor claim and was withdrawn by the complainant vide letter submitted dated 3.5.2013 and claim was closed as no claim.”

 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the whole case file and find that though the complainant lodged the minor claim with the OP number 2 (previous insurer of the car in question), but the same was withdrawn by the complainant, as is evident from the copy of request letter submitted by the complainant to OP number 2, which is on record as Ex.OP2/4 and from the closure letter dated 3.5.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP2/3 and the relevant portion of the letter Ex.OP2/3 is reproduced as “…Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion regarding the subject, we are closing the subject as Nill claim and the subject claim stands withdrawn.”  From the letter Ex.OP2/3, it is clear that the complainant did not receive even a single penny from the OP number 2 in lieu of claim amount as the same was closed as ‘no claim’.  This fact is further supported by the sworn affidavit of Shri Khushbu Tyagi, Sr. Executive Legal and authorised signatory, Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi, Ex.OP2/1.  Since it is proved on record that the complainant did not receive any claim from OP number 2 (previous insurer of the vehicle in question), as such, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party number 1 has wrongly repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant. We may mention that the insurance company should be honest and forthright in its approach while settling an insurance claim; factors, which are material and germane should be given importance. The genuine claim should not be rejected on flimsy and technical grounds otherwise the confidence of the people in insurance companies would be deeply eroded.  Further it is well settled legal position that consumer courts are not expected to go in technicalities of the civil or criminal jurisprudence.  Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we have carefully examined the facts, circumstances and evidence on record.

 

8.             Now, coming to the point of claim payable to the complainant by OP number 1.  We have perused the copy of survey report submitted by Er. Anand Pal Singh Gurunay of Eminent Surveyors, which is on record as Ex.OP1/7, wherein the surveyor has assessed the claim payable to the tune of Rs.1,69,006/- on cash loss basis.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhupinder Singh 2013(2) CPJ335 (NC), wherein the insured vehicle was stolen and the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of wrongly availing no claim bonus @ 25% on renewal of policy, thus, there is a policy condition. But the State Commission partly allowed the appeal holding that in case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane and the insurance company was held to be liable to identify the insurance company and directed the insurance company to settle the claim on non standard basis and pay 75% of amount. Since in the present case, the surveyor of the OP has assessed the claim to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,69,006/-, as such, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant 75% of the assessed value of claim i.e. Rs.1,69,006/- which comes to the tune of Rs.1,26,755/-.

 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,26,755/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07.10.2014 till realisation. OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses. 

 

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 10, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member