Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
- The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he is owner of vehicle Mahindra make New Scorpio S10 7 STR, Manufacturing date 09/2017, Colour White, having Engine No.SJH4H20365, Chassis No.MA1TA2SJXH2H26736, registered date 27.09.2017 bearing Registration Certificate No.PB29Z-9711 and the said vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant. The Complainant further alleges that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the Opposite Parties vide policy No.201204311/7P108863830 which was valid for the period w.e.f. 21.09.2017 (hours) to 20.09.2018 (midnight) having Insured Declared Value of Rs.13,65,000/- and for this insurance he paid the premium of Rs.36,410/- with the Opposite Party No.1, and hence, the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Party as defined under the Act. Further alleges that alongwith this cover note, the Opposite Parties never issued any terms and conditions of the policy documents. The case of the Complainant is that on 11.05.2018 the complainant alongwith his friend Nirmal Singh Son of Daya Ram, resident of Indira Colony, Moga, District Moga was coming from Jalandhar to Ludhiana for his urgent domestic work. At that time, it was being driven by his friend Nirmal Singh. It was about 11.30 PM, when the complainant and friend reached on the vehicle in question, near to PAP Gate No.2 Jalandhar Cantt which falls in the area of Rama Mandi, Jalandhar, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident with a bus coming from front side which was having very high speed and its front lights were very sharp and due to this reason, the vehicle of the complainant, due to sharp lights of the bus, became uncontrolled and climbed on the divider of the road and its all the four tyres bursed and the vehicle of the complainant turtled and was badly damaged, its all the mirrors and its roof were broken badly. But however, there was no loss of any kind of any other vehicle. The said accident was occurred due to sharp lights of the front coming bus and there was no fault of any other person or vehicle. Rapat regarding the accident was got registered with Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, copy of which is Ex.C5. Thereafter, the vehicle in question was brought at Moga after toeing from Rama Mandi (which is near to PAP Gate No.2, Jalandhar) to Moga on 12.05.2018. But at Moga, because there was no authorized service centre of Mahindra, hence the damaged vehicle was brought to its authorized service centre at Dada Motors, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the authorized service centre of Mahindra i.e. Dada Motors, made the inspection of the damaged vehicle and assessed the accidental vehicle to the extent of Rs.13,99,619/-, copy of the detail of assessment is attached herewith as Ex.C6. But as per the cover note issued by the Opposite Parties, however, the Insured declared value of the vehicle in question was Rs.13,65,000/-. In this way, the vehicle in question was declared as Total Loss and accordingly, the complainant lodged the claim of his damaged vehicle as total loss and thereafter, the Opposite Party appointed the surveyor, but the Opposite Parties has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous grounds of violation of the terms sand conditions of the insurance policy. The Complainant further alleges that he never breached any terms and conditions of the policy in question. As alleges above, at the time of issuing the policy in question as mentioned above, alongwith this cover note, the Opposite Parties never issued any terms and conditions of the policy documents. As such, the alleged terms and conditions, particularly the exclusion clause of the policy in question is not binding upon the insured. Moreover, the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant for earning his livelihood and there is no other vehicle with the complainant except the present one, hence there is no question of driving the vehicle in question as taxi. Further, it is admitted that on 12.05.2018 the vehicle in question was brought by toeing from Rama Manadi which is nearer to PAP Gate, Jalandhar and in this way, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the complainant. Hence, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant has been made by the Opposite Parties on the false and frivolous grounds. In view of this, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and they have illegally repudiated the genuine and legal claim of the complainant taking the false and frivolous ground. Further alleges that since the date of accident the damaged vehicle is lying with Dada Motors, Ludhiana for its repair, but the Opposite Parties vide its repudiation letter Ex.C7 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. Now the workshop authority i.e. Dada Motors, Ludhiana is raising the demand of parking charges of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.1000/- per day. Due to the aforesaid acts and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment as well as financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to make the IDV value of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.13,65,000/- .
- The amount of Rs.50,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.
- The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.20,000/- may please be allowed.
- Opposite Parties be also directed to pay the damages on account of parking charges of the damage vehicle to the tune of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of accident i.e. 11.5.2018 till its realization.
- And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Comission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct; that the Complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the Opposite Parties for the period w.e.f. 21.09.2017 to 20.09.2018 and it is also not disputed that the vehicle met with an accident on 11.05.2018 near PAP Gate No.2 Jalandhar. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties immediately appointed the surveyor to investigate the matter and assessed the loss. On investigation, it is found that the Complainant runs a business of tours and travels and has various vehicle in which the vehicle in question is one of them. The Complainant has sent some paid driver to drop some passengers to Jalandhar which shows that the vehicle was used as Taxi and thereafter the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The contract of insurance is of utmost good faith, but the Complainant has concealed the fact about using the vehicle as taxi from the Opposite Parties, therefore, the Complainant has violated the conditions No.5 and 6 of the insurance policy and hence, the Opposite Parties have repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 07.09.2018 as per the insurance policy terms and conditions. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. It is however pertinent to mention over here that the Opposite Parties appointed Universal Detective Associates for investigation and Sh.A.S.Kapur to investigate the claim and assessed the loss and said surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.8,49,500/-. Moreover, the policy documents alongwith terms and conditions of the insurance policy were given to the Complainant at the time of the insurance policy and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of premium receipt Ex.C2, copy of policy Ex.C3, copy of RC of the vehicle Ex.C4, copy of police report Ex.C5, copy of detail of bills Ex.C6, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Raghu Bansal, Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ex.OP1, copy of policy Ex.OP2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.OP3, copy of report of Investigator Ex.OP4, copy of report of surveyor A.S.Kapoor Ex.OP5, copy of letter Ex.OP6, copy of claim form Ex.OP7, copy of police report Ex.OP8, copy of visiting card Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments of the Complainant as well as of Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that the Complainant is owner of vehicle Mahindra make New Scorpio S10 7 STR, Manufacturing date 09/2017, Colour White, having Engine No.SJH4H20365, Chassis No.MA1TA2SJXH2H26736, registered date 27.09.2017 bearing Registration Certificate No.PB29Z-9711 and the said vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant. Further contended that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the Opposite Parties vide policy No.201204311/7P108863830 which was valid for the period w.e.f. 21.09.2017 (hours) to 20.09.2018 (midnight) having Insured Declared Value of Rs.13,65,000/- and for this insurance he paid the premium of Rs.36,410/- with the Opposite Party No.1, and hence, the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Party as defined under the Act. Further contended that alongwith this cover note, the Opposite Parties never issued any terms and conditions of the policy documents. The case of the Complainant is that on 11.05.2018 the complainant alongwith his friend Nirmal Singh Son of Daya Ram, resident of Indira Colony, Moga, District Moga was coming from Jalandhar to Ludhiana for his urgent domestic work. At that time, it was being driven by his friend Nirmal Singh. It was about 11.30 PM, when the complainant and friend reached on the vehicle in question, near to PAP Gate No.2 Jalandhar Cantt which falls in the area of Rama Mandi, Jalandhar, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident with a bus coming from front side which was having very high speed and its front lights were very sharp and due to this reason, the vehicle of the complainant, due to sharp lights of the bus, became uncontrolled and climbed on the divider of the road and its all the four tyres bursed and the vehicle of the complainant turtled and was badly damaged, its all the mirrors and its roof were broken badly. But however, there was no loss of any kind of any other vehicle. The said accident was occurred due to sharp lights of the front coming bus and there was no fault of any other person or vehicle. Rapat regarding the accident was got registered with Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, copy of which is Ex.C5. Thereafter, the vehicle in question was brought at Moga after toeing from Rama Mandi (which is near to PAP Gate No.2, Jalandhar) to Moga on 12.05.2018. But at Moga, because there was no authorized service centre of Mahindra, hence the damaged vehicle was brought to its authorized service centre at Dada Motors, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the authorized service centre of Mahindra i.e. Dada Motors, made the inspection of the damaged vehicle and assessed the accidental vehicle to the extent of Rs.13,99,619/-, copy of the detail of assessment is attached herewith as Ex.C6. But as per the cover note issued by the Opposite Parties, however, the Insured declared value of the vehicle in question was Rs.13,65,000/-. In this way, the vehicle in question was declared as Total Loss and accordingly, the complainant lodged the claim of his damaged vehicle as total loss and thereafter, the Opposite Party appointed the surveyor, but the Opposite Parties has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous grounds of violation of the terms sand conditions of the insurance policy. The Complainant further alleges that he never breached any terms and conditions of the policy in question. As alleges above, at the time of issuing the policy in question as mentioned above, alongwith this cover note, the Opposite Parties never issued any terms and conditions of the policy documents. As such, the alleged terms and conditions, particularly the exclusion clause of the policy in question is not binding upon the insured. Moreover, the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant for earning his livelihood and there is no other vehicle with the complainant except the present one, hence there is no question of driving the vehicle in question as taxi and hence, the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering services. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has further contended that the written version filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties has not been filed by an authorized person and therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and on this lone ground, the written version filed by the Opposite Parties can not be treated as defence of the Opposite Parties .
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that the it is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the Opposite Parties for the period w.e.f. 21.09.2017 to 20.09.2018 and it is also not disputed that the vehicle met with an accident on 11.05.2018 near PAP Gate No.2 Jalandhar. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties immediately appointed the surveyor to investigate the matter and assessed the loss. On investigation, it is found that the Complainant runs a business of tours and travels and has various vehicle in which the vehicle in question is one of them. The Complainant has sent some paid driver to drop some passengers to Jalandhar which shows that the vehicle was used as Taxi and thereafter the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The contract of insurance is of utmost good faith, but the Complainant has concealed the fact about using the vehicle as taxi from the Opposite Parties, therefore, the Complainant has violated the conditions No.5 and 6 of the insurance policy and hence, the Opposite Parties have repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 07.09.2018 as per the insurance policy terms and conditions. It is further contended that the Opposite Parties appointed Universal Detective Associates for investigation and Sh.A.S.Kapur to investigate the claim and assessed the loss and said surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.8,49,500/-. Moreover, the policy documents alongwith terms and conditions of the insurance policy were given to the Complainant at the time of the insurance policy and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the shows that the written version filed on behalf of the Opposite Party has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment, has held that
“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”
Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the
“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”
Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by an unauthorized person has no legal effect.
9. For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Parties is presumed to be correct, the plea raised by Opposite Parties is that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to the claim as claimed. But the Opposite Parties could not produce any evidence to prove that terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to the complainant insured, when and through which mode? It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satpal Singh & Others 2014(2) CLT page 305 that the insured is not bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy unless it is proved that policy was supplied to the insured by the insurance company. Onus to prove that terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the insured lies upon the insurance company. From the perusal of the entire evidence produced on record by the Opposite Parties, it is clear that Opposite Parties have failed to prove on record that they did supply the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant insured. As such, these terms and conditions, particularly the exclusion clause of the policy is not binding upon the insured. Reliance in this connection can be had on Modern Insulators Ltd.Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2000) 2 SCC 734, wherein it is held that “In view of the above settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the National Commission is not correct. As the above terms and conditions of the standard policy wherein the exclusion clause was included, were neither a part of the contract of insurance nor disclosed to the appellant, the respondent can not claim the benefit of the said exclusion clause. Therefore, the finding of the National Commission is untenable in law.” Our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.871 of 2014 decided on 03.02.2017 in case titled as Veena Mahajan (Widow) and others Vs. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited in para No.5 has held that
“Counsel for the appellant argued that copy of insurance policy was not supplied to the appellant and hence, the exclusion clause in the contract of the insurance policy is not binding upon him. He further argued that no proof of sending of insurance policy was ever produced by the respondent despite specific contention raised by the complainant that the insurance policy was never received by him. He argued that though there is an averment of the OP that the policy in question was delivered through Blue Dart Courier to the complainant. In order to prove their contention, no affidavit of any employee of Blue Dart was produced who would have made a statement to have the effect that the policy was delivered to the complainant nor any acknowledgement slip for having received the article by the complainant through courier company was produced by the insurance company. He argued that since no policy document was received by the insured and argued that the terms and conditions as alleged to be part of the insurance policy were not binding upon the insured. He argued that policy was issued in the name of deceased Sh.Vijinder Pal Mahajan with his wife Mrs.Veena Mahajan as beneficiary and the same was never refused by the OP and the proper premium for insurance was paid by late complainant. He argued that as per the specific allegations made in the complaint in para No.4, no rebuttal to that contention was specifically there in their written reply in para No.2 and para No.4 in the reply filed by OP in the District Forum. He argued that Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of "Ashok Sharma Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited", in Revision Petition No. 2708 of 2013 held in para No.8 to the point of non-delivery of terms and conditions of the policy. He also cited Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision given in the matter of "United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. M.K.J.Corporation" in Appeal (civil) 6075-6076 of 1995 (1996) 6 SCC 428 wherein the Apex court held that a fundamental principle of Insurance Law makes it that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties. Good faith forbids either party from concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact and his believing the contrary. Just as the insured has a duty to disclose, "similarly, it is the duty of the insurers and their agents to disclose all material facts within their knowledge, since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the assured and further argued that since the terms and conditions were not supplied even on repeated requests the same cannot be relied upon by the opposite party in order to report to repudiate the genuine claim of the wife of the deceased policy holder.”
10. With regard to the main plea raised by the Opposite Parties regarding repudiation of the claim of the Complainant was that on investigation, it is found that the Complainant runs a business of tours and travels and has various vehicles in which the vehicle in question is one of them. The Complainant has sent some paid driver to drop some passengers to Jalandhar which shows that the vehicle was used as Taxi and thereafter the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The contract of insurance is of utmost good faith, but the Complainant has concealed the fact about using the vehicle as taxi from the Opposite Parties, therefore, the Complainant has violated the conditions No.5 and 6 of the insurance policy and hence, the Opposite Parties have repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 07.09.2018 as per the insurance policy terms and conditions. On the other hand, to rebut this plea of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint as well as in duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 that the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant for earning his livelihood and there is no other vehicle with the complainant except the present one, hence there is no question of driving the vehicle in question as taxi. However, at the most, even if for arguments sake it is admitted that the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy in question, even then the Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim of the complainant on “non standard basis” even if some of the conditions of the insurance policy are not adhered by the insured. Learned counsel in support of his above contention has relied upon the case titled National Insurance Company Limited versus Kamal Singhal IV (2010)CPJ297 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi relying upon various decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. J. P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (RP No. 643/2005), (2) Punjab Chemical Agency v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (RP No. 2097/2009), (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bahrati Rajiv Bankar, (RP) No. 3294/2009) and (4) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jeetmal, (RP No.3366/2009) and also judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Insurance Company Versus Nitin Khandewal IV (2008) CPJ 1(SC), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held in the matter of theft of a vehicle, breach of condition of the policy was not germane and also held further that:“the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that; “even assuming that there was a breach of policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on “non-standard basis.” Hon'ble Apex Court in back drop of these features, in these cases, allowed 70% of the claim of the claimant on the “non-standard basis”. This view was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited. II(2010) CPJ 9(SC)=II (2010)SLT 672. Hon'ble National Commission in the case National Insurance Company Limited versus Kamal Singhal referred to above relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;
“there being a long line of decisions on this score, we have no option but to uphold the finding of Fora below with modification that the claim be settled on 'non-standard' basis”, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Insurance Company. In case petitioner company fails to carry out the direction contained therein, the amount payable on 'non-standard' basis, shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of expiry of six weeks till the date of actual payment”.
11. In such a situation the repudiation made by Opposite Parties regarding genuine claim of the complainant appears to have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pesters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
12. Now come to the quantum of compensation. It is not disputed that the damaged vehicle was brought to its authorized service centre at Dada Motors, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the authorized service centre of Mahindra i.e. Dada Motors, made the inspection of the damaged vehicle and assessed the accidental vehicle to the extent of Rs.13,99,619/-, copy of the detail of assessment is attached herewith as Ex.C6. But as per the cover note issued by the Opposite Parties, however, the Insured declared value of the vehicle in question was Rs.13,65,000/-. Having regard to the position of the law, as has been laid down, by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various decisions referred to here-in-above and also the view expressed by the Hon'ble National Commission, we are of the considered view that in the present case the complainant, if not entitled for the entire amount i.e. IDV of the damaged vehicle, the Insurance Company definitely ought to have settled the complainant's claim on 'non-standard basis”, which in the facts and circumstances taking the assistance of the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also by the Hon'ble National Commission, we allow 70% of the claim of the complainant on 'non-standard' basis” of the IDV amount.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the Complainant partly and direct the Opposite Parties to make the payment of Rs.9,55,500/- (Rupees nine lakh fifty five thousands five hundred only) i.e. 70% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.13,65,000/-. to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 07.09.2018 till its actual realization. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay the lump sum compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
14. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 26.10.2021.
