BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 354 of 2019
Date of Institution: 30.4.2019
Date of Decision:7.3.2023
- Mr.Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Bhajan Singh R/o VPO Taragarh,District Amritsar
- Malhotra Finance having its registered office at 101, Ist Floor, Super Plaza, Cooper Road, Amritsar having its branch office at Rayya Distt.Amritsar through its Prop. Sh.Ashwani Malhotra
Complainants
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer through its Branch office at G.T. Road, Rayya District Amritsar through its Branch Manager
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act
Result : Complaint Allowed
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Subodh Salwan,Advocate
CORAM
Mr.Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
Mrs.Mandeep Kaur, Member
Mr.Lakhwinder Pal Gill,Member
ORDER:-
Sh.Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by the complainant under section12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Brief facts and pleadings
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant No.1 got his vehicle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. PB 17 B 2903 financed from complainant No.2 and got the insurance for the financed vehicle from the opposite party covering the risk period 29.4.2013 to 28.4.2014 copy of cover note is Ex.C-2. Unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen on 17.8.2013 from Batala when the vehicle was safely parked there and the police authorities were immediately intimated and FIR No. 22/13 at P.S . Civil Lines, Batala was registered and the said vehicle is not traceable till the filing of the present complaint. The IDV of the said vehicle was Rs. 25000/-.The. complainant completed all the formalities as and when askekd by the opposite party for the disbursement of the claim and the opposite party agreed to disburse the genuine claim of the complainant. The opposite party did not make good the indemnified amount for a long time and neither replied to the complainant and after lot of deliberations the opposite party sent email of the status of the claim of the complainant on 26.4.2017. Opposite party instead of making payment repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant vide email dated 26.4.2017 on frivolous ground of non submission of the documents. The said ground of repudiation is against the true facts as the complainant was never intimated of any required documents by the opposite party nor any said alleged letter was written by the opposite party. The aforesaid act of the opposite party in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Opposite party be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 25000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of theft till realization ;
(ii) Compensation of Rs. 25,,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
(iii) Opposite party be also directed to pay adequate litigation expenses to the complainant.
(iv) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled be also granted to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant has got lodged the alleged claim of theft of his motorcycle in question with the replying opposite party and the opposite party issued intimation letters to the complainant asking him to submit the required documents mentioned in those letters as the same wee required for the processing of the claim. However, the complainant failed to submit the same to the opposite party and thereafter the opposite party closed the claim file of the complainant on 11.9.2015 being “No Claim: which clearly manifests that the present claim is hopelessly time barred. It was denied that complainant has completed all the formalities with regard to claim as and when asked by the opposite party. No such documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant in order to prove the said alleged facts. It is worth to mention here that the copy of email which has been placed on record by the complainant was not addressed to the complainant and the said email is the part of internal process of replying opposite party and the complainant has tried to make his complaint within the period of limitation by placing it on record but the limitation to file the present complaint has got exhausted even from 26th April 2017, the date mentioned on the said mail. While submitting that there is no deficiency in service and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
Evidence of the parties and Arguments
3. Alongwith the complaint, Sh. Ashwani Malhotra, Prop. of Malhotra Finance has filed his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy schedule Ex.C-2, copy of untraced report Ex.C-3, copy of email Ex.C-4.
4. On the other hand opposite party alongwith written version has filed affidavit of Sh. Dilbag Singh, DM Ex.OP1/A, copy of Insurance policy Ex.OP1/1, and terms and conditions of policy Ex.OP1/2, copy of email Ex.OP1/3
5. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file. Ld.counsel for the complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for the opposite party suffered their statements that they do not want to file written arguments and the contents of the complaint as well as written version alongwith exhibited documents respectively be read as part of written arguments.
Findings
6. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record the case of the complainant No.1 is that he got his vehicle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. PB 17 B 2903 financed from complainant No.2 and got the same insured from the opposite party covering the risk period 29.4.2013 to 28.4.2014 copy of cover note is Ex.C-2. Unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen on 17.8.2013 from Batala when the vehicle was safely parked there and the police authorities were immediately intimated and FIR No. 22/13 at P.S . Civil Lines, Batala was registered and the said vehicle is not traceable till the filing of the present complaint. The IDV of the said vehicle was Rs. 25000/- . It is the case of the complainant that he completed all the formalities as and when asked by the opposite party for the disbursement of the claim but the opposite party has failed to disburse the claim to the complainant. However after lot of deliberations the opposite party sent email of the status of the claim of the complainant on 26.4.2017 vide which opposite party repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant on the ground of non submission of the documents. The complainant was never intimated of any required documents by the opposite party nor any said alleged letter was written by the opposite party. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the act of the opposite party in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice
7. On the other hand the opposite party repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant and submitted that complainant has got lodged the alleged claim of theft of his motorcycle in question with the replying opposite party and the opposite party issued intimation letters to the complainant asking him to submit the required documents mentioned in those letters as the same were required for the processing of the claim. However, the complainant failed to submit the same to the opposite party and thereafter the opposite party closed the claim file of the complainant on 11.9.2015 being “No Claim” which clearly manifests that the present claim is hopelessly time barred. It was submitted that copy of email which has been placed on record by the complainant was not addressed to the complainant and the said email is the part of internal process of replying opposite party and the complainant has tried to make his complaint within the period of limitation.
8. This Commission has given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case. The only ground taken by the opposite party is that as the complainant failed to submit the documents required by the opposite party for the processing of the claim as such the opposite party closed the claim file of the complainant on 11.9.2015 being “No Claim”. But we are not agreed with this plea taken by the opposite party as the opposite party has neither placed on record any letters written to the opposite party requiring the documents nor has placed on record the letter dated 11.9.2015 vide which the claim of the complainant was closed as “No claim”. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be believed that the complainant was at any stage apprised about his claim as “No Claim” nor he was apprised to submit the documents. On the other hand the contention of the complainant is that he has completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party for the settlement of the claim. Moreover it is settled principle of law that in case, two plausible views were available, under given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer. Reference in this regard can be had to “Kulwinder Singh Versus LIC of India “ 2007(1) CLT 303 (Punjab) wherein it has been held that “where two views are possible, the one, which favour the consumer should be taken”
9. The other point raised by the opposite party is that as the claim of the complainant was closed as No claim vide letter dated 11.9.2015, as such the same is barred by limitation. But we are not agreed with this plea taken by the opposite party as once as discussed above letter dated 11.9.2015 vide which the opposite party closed the claim as “No claim” is not proved by the opposite party and this Commission relied upon the email vide email dated 26.4.2017 vide which the claim was repudiated. No doubt the email is dated 26.4.2017 but the complaint is filed on 29.4.2019 However, complainant alongwith the complaint has filed an application for condoning the delay which was allowed by this Commission vide order 8.5.2019 and as such the delay has been condoned and as such this plea of the opposite party is not maintainable . Rather the opposite party is at fault by not settling the claim for such a long period and only to escape themselves for such a long period delay has tried to rely upon the letter dated 11.9.2015 which was not proved as above, whereas the opposite party is liable to settle the claim within one month from the lodging of the claim. In support of this reliance has been placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajbir Kaur, in First Appeal No. 711 of 2013 decided on 27.2.2015 of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein in similar case, the Hon’ble State Commission directed the Insurance company and stated that as per the regulations/instructed issued by the IRDA, the claims made under the Insurance policies are ordinarily be settled within one month of the submission of the claim. As such the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for not settling the claim for such a long period and lastly on 26.4.2017 i.e. after three years repudiated the claim on false and frivolous grounds. As such the opposite party is not only liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle but also to compensate the complainant for not settling the claim for such a long period.
10. Consequently we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 25000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization to the complainant. As the opposite party failed to settle the claim for such a long period, as such opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission.
Announced in Open Commission (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra)
President
Dated: 7.3.2023
(Lakhwinder Pal Gill) (Mandeep Kaur) Member Member
