DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Smt. Vijay Luxmi w/o Sh. R.K. Bansl, resident of H.No. 489, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No. 183-85, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:           MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU   MEMBER

Argued By:      None for the Complainant.

Sh. Parminder Singh, Adv for Sh. Amanpreet Singh, Adv. for OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.              Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OP for short), on the grounds that the OP failed to settled the accident claim of the Complainant since September, 2009. When the claim was forwarded to OP by its Pune branch. It is briefly stated that the Complainant owned a Ford Icon Car bearing No. CH-03-Z-1529, which was initially insured with the ICICI Lombard for the period 19.2.08 to 18.02.09, vide Policy No. 3001/51308045/01/000. The Complainant got renewed the insurance policy with OP for the period 19.2.09 to 18.2.2010 vide cover note no.280472, dated 27.1.09 and a policy no. 11020031020100008172 was issued and the same is Annex.C/1.

                In the month of August, 2009, the car in question met with an accident at Pune. The Pune Branch of the OP was intimated about the accident and the same was got repair there itself by spending Rs.14,775/-. The claim was lodged with Pune Branch of the OP. The copy of receipt of Rs.14,775/- bearing No. 452 is at Annex.C/2.

                The claim of the Complainant was forwarded to Chandigarh Branch of OP vide ref. no. 637, dated 16.6.09 and 6799, dated 30.9.09. It is alleged that since then the claim of the Complainant has not been settled till date. The Complainant had also sent reminders dated 5.1.10, 3.3.10, 20.4.10 and 16.6.10, which yielded no result. Complainant also approached the Ombudsman, but no response was heard at all.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service, Complainant seeks following relief:-

[i]         Refund of Rs.14,775/- along with interest @24% p.a.

[ii]        Compensation and damages of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and losses.

2.              On notice, OP has filed their version/ written statement and have contested the claim of the Complainant, by raising preliminary objections to the fact that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is based on suppression of material facts. It is also stated that the present complaint has become infructuous as the claim of the Complainant has been settled and a Cheque no. 995564, dated 25.4.11, amounting to Rs.6605/- has been dispatched to the Complainant on 27.4.2011. The covering letter bearing all the details is enclosed as Annex.R-1.  It is further mentioned that the car of the Complainant was previously insured with the ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. and as such, the Complainant had availed 20% No Claim Bonus (NCB) on the said policy. However, it is alleged that the Complainant was not qualified for NCB, because a claim had been settled during the operation of the previous policy.

                On merits, the OP has repeated the above submissions and categorically defended themselves by bring on record the annexures from R-1 to R-8, in support of its contentions. The OP has clearly mentioned that the claim of the Complainant was in due process when the reminders for the settlement of the same were made. The delay was only due to the non-receipt of any communication from the ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. the previous insurer of the policy, on basis of which the NCB was forwarded to the Complainant. The OP claimed that on receiving the communication [Annex.R-3] from the ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd., the factum of claim paid came to light. After receiving the same, the OP has also sent a letter dated 29.3.2011 [Annex.R-8], wherein they have categorically stated that the claim of the Complainant has been approved for Rs.8700/-, subject to the recovery of NCB of Rs.2095/-. It was further mentioned in the letter that if the Complainant desired to deposit Rs.2095/-, the claim of Rs.8700/- could be collected from the office of the OP.

                OP claimed that the Complainant instead of replying  to the said letter dated 29.3.2011, filed the present complaint. However, the OP on not receiving any communication from the side of the Complainant released Rs.6605/- vide a Cheque bearing No. 995564, dated 25.4.2011, along with the covering letter dated 27.4.2011. The receipt of the said letter is also not admitted by the Complainant.

                Under these circumstances, OP claimed that the present complaint be dismissed, with costs.    

3.              Parties led their respective evidences.

4.              Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OPs, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5.              The present complaint was filed on 7.4.2011 and came up for admission on 20.4.2011. The OP being duly served come forward to contest the claim of the Complainant, by bring on record a detailed affidavit of Sh. K.S. Ahuja, Divisional Manager of the OP, along with relevant Annexures.

6.              Though all the facts of the present complaint are admitted by the OP, only to the extent that the said vehicle was insured with it, and a claim of the amount of Rs.14775/- was under process. The said vehicle in question met with an accident at Pune and was repaired there itself. A surveyor was appointed by the Pune office of the OP, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8700/-.

7.              The OP further claims that it was very much within their right to inquire and investigate the question of genuinity of NCB, which was forwarded to the Complainant. The delay was only due to non receipt of any timely communication from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.

8.              It was only after the said communication [Annex.R/3] that the fact of a claim having been paid to the Complainant, vide its policy for the period 19.2.2008 to 17.2.2009, by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, was disclosed. Hence, under such circumstances, the OP had the right to lay claim to the 25% of the premium amount from the Complainant, which amount to Rs.2095/-.

9.              The Complainant even though having come to the knowledge of the facts which were disclosed by the OP through their version failed to address them by way of rebuttal or bringing any cogent evidence to prove the present complaint in her favour.

10.            We feel the OP is not deficient in service. However, the delay is only due to the circumstances beyond their control and as such, the present also stands addressed, as the OP has released the assessed amount minus the NCB, which we feel the OP is well within their right to do so.

11.            It is also important to mention that after having filed the present complaint, the Complainant through her counsel had only appeared on two different occasions i.e. (i) on the date of admission of the present complaint and (ii) on the date when the written version was filed by the OP. Even on the concluding day, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of the Complainant. Hence, the present complaint was proceeded to be disposed off on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection rules, 1987 read with Section 13[2] of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

12.            On the above observations, we do not find any merit  in the present complaint, as the Complainant has failed to convincingly prove her case. We dismiss the present complaint, without costs. Parties to bear their own costs.     

13.               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05^th December, 2011.                                                                          

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)