DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 513

 Instituted on:   14.12.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     22.08.2023

Gurpreet Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of Village Sherpur, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Railway Road, Sangrur 148001 through its Divisional Manager.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Gaushala Road, Mansa through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant    :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal and

                                            Shri  Udit Goyal, Adv.

For OPs                    :         Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that he availed services of the OPs by getting insured his Toyota Innova car bearing registration number HR-26-BQ-1858 for Rs.6,50,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.15039/- through their agent namely, Shri Anish Garg of Sherpur and the OPs accordingly issued policy bearing number 2004033114P107404348  for the period from 5.12.2014 to 4.12.2015.  Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately on 2.8.2015, when the friend of the complainant, namely, Jaswinder Singh was returning to Sherpur from Delhi, the car in question met with an accident while suddenly a straw animal came in front of the vehicle, as a result of which the vehicle suffered damage.  The intimation of the accident was given to the OPs, who appointed the surveyor. Thereafter the complainant submitted documents to the OPs and requested the OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs.6,50,000/- but the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.9.2016 on the ground that the complainant obtained 20% NCB wrongly and illegally. Thereafter though the complainant approached the OPs number of times to pay the claim, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, it is admitted that OP number 2 insured the vehicle of the complainant for Rs.6,50,000/-. However, the jurisdiction of this Commission has been denied as the vehicle in question was insured at Mansa. Limitation of the complaint is also disputed. It is stated further that after receipt of the intimation, the OPs appointed M/s. G.C. Singh and Associates, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the final loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,82,678.19 on cash loss basis as the insured was not interested to repair the vehicle in question and requested for settlement of the claim on cash loss basis vide letter dated 22.1.2016. It is further stated that the insured also gave his consent to accept Rs.1,82,678/- in full and final settlement on cash loss basis. Further case of OPs is that the surveyor submitted his final survey report dated 27.9.2016 and assessed Rs.2,03,197/- as loss on cash loss basis but an amount of Rs.3,12,237/- was assessed as loss on repair basis. It is stated further that the complainant submitted a proposal form for the insurance of his private car, insurance policy was issued commencing the period from 5.12.2014 to 4.12.2015 and in the proposal form declaration regarding no claim bonus was wrongly made by the insured and on that basis 20% no claim bonus was allowed for which he was not entitled being he has already obtained one claim in the expiring policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Lastly, it is stated that OPs repudiated the claim on the basis of wrongly claiming NCB by the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 to Ex.OPs/10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. 

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OPs and the accident of the vehicle during the subsistence of the insurance policy is also not disputed.   In the present case, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.09.2016, Ex.C-3 on the ground that the complainant availed 20% NCB whereas he has received the claim from the expiring policy, which is said to be a breach of policy condition. It is worth mentioning here that the vehicle was got insured on 5.12.2014, whereas the accident took place on 2.8.2015 meaning thereby the OPs did not make any inquiry about receiving of the claim in the previous policy for the period of eight months and only when there was a turn of the OPs to pay the claim then they got checked whether there is any payment of claim in the previous policy.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why they did not check it immediately at the time of issuing the insurance policy and it was open for the Ops to not to allow the NCB at that time if there was any claim.  Further the OPs could recover the NCB from the complainant even after knowing about the claim in the previous policy.

6.             The OPs have produced on record copy of proposal form Ex.OPs/1, but a bare perusal of this document nowhere reveals that it was ever signed by the complainant Gurpreet Singh himself or by the agent of the OPs rather it is signed by one Frem Singh, as such we are unable to rely upon on such a proposal form produced by the OPs. In this case, the fact remains that the vehicle in question was insured by the OPs. It is the common practice that the agents of the OPs are working for insuring the vehicle on various places and after collection, the premiums are being sent to their parent office for insuring the vehicles. The proposal form Ex.OPs/1 nowhere proves that the proposal form was filled at Mansa nor there is any mention that the proposal form was filled at Mansa. It is worth mentioning here that earlier the complainant filed application number 21 dated 7.2.2017 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sangrur, which was decided on 2.11.2018 and permission was granted to the complainant to file the same before the alternative court of competent jurisdiction upto 15.12.2018, as such, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 14.12.2018 before this Forum/Commission, as such, we are of the considered opinion that this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

7.             Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in National Insurance Company Limtied versus Jagir Kaur, Revision Petition No.330 of 2013 (appeal No.837 of 2008) decided on 19.2.2016, wherein in the similar circumstances of the case where 20% NCB was claimed by the complainant wrongly, the Hon’ble National Commission directed the insurance company to settle the claim by awarding 75% of the amount assessed in the survey report.  We may mention that in the present case, the surveyor M/s. G.C.Singh & Associates vide its report dated 27.09.2016 Ex.OPs/5 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.203197/-.  The present case comes to the four corners of the citation of the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein 75% claim has been ordered to be paid by the insurance company to the complainant.  Now, we are of the considered opinion that we will go with this decision of the Hon’ble National Commission.  Now, coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  If we calculate the claim payable in view of the above methodology, it comes to Rs.152398/- (Rs.203197x75/100).  Now, we are of the definite opinion that the complainant is entitled to the claim of Rs.152398/- as discussed above.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,52,398/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.12.2018 till its realisation in full. We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by OPs within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

                        August 22, 2023.