Haryana

Karnal

CC/570/2022

Ranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Gureja

02 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 570 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.11.10.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:02.05.2024

 

Ranjeet Singh aged about 33 years son of Hardeep Singh, resident of village Jalmana Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. Aadhar no.4774 0032 5556.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company, having its Divisional Office at old G.T. Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

2. United India Insurance Company, 1^st floor, Insurance Point, opposite SBI Ambala Road, Pehowa District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Surinder Gureja, Adv. for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, Adv. for the OPs.

 

                     (Dr. Suman Singh , Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of Tata Safari bearing registration no.HR-02AL-5975. The complainant had insured the said vehicle with the OPs, vide policy no.1126813121P102454650, valid from 21.06.2021 to 20.06.2022, having Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.6,75,000/-. Unfortunately, on 07.02.2022, the said vehicle met with an accident near Khanna (Punjab) and was totally damaged. The intimation in this regard was sent to OPs and on receipt of intimation, OPs appointed a surveyor. The surveyor  inspected the vehicle and assessed the vehicle of complainant as “Total Loss”. Thereafter, complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim. After that complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested to settle the claim but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.08.2022 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the present complaint is premature as the complainant has not provided the requisite documents to the OPs in order to process the claim. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of intimation letter dated 08.02.2022 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 26.08.2022 Ex.C4, postal receipt Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 27.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kamal, Assistant Manager Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Er. B.B. Chawla Surveyor Ex.RW1/A, copy of consent letter Ex.R1, copy of surveyor report Ex.R2, copy of insurance policy Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 06.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his vehicle with the OPs. On 08.02.2022, the said vehicle met with an accident and was totally damaged. The intimation was given to OPs and on receipt of intimation, OPs appointed a surveyor, who got surveyed the vehicle and submitted his report, the vehicle of complainant has totally damaged.  Complainant submitted the claim with the OPs and completed all the required formalities for settlement of the claim but OPs did not pay the claim amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complaint is premature as the complainant has not provided the requisite documents to the OPs for settlement of the claim and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle is Rs.6,75,000/-.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OPs on the ground that complainant has not provided the requisite documents to the OPs, but OPs have failed to prove on record that which documents were demanded by them. OPs have relied upon the consent letter Ex.R1, in the said consent letter OPs have not raised any query with regard to submission of the documents. Furthermore the surveyor of the OPs surveyed the vehicle in question and it is not possible that without taking the required documents, he has prepared his report and came to the conclusion that the vehicle is not repairable and is totally damaged.  Meaning, thereby, no documents were pending as alleged by the OPs. Moreover, OPs have not placed on file any letters/reminders as alleged from which it can be inferred that they demanded the documents. Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such heavy amount why he will not supply the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigations. Hence, we found no substance in the contentions of OPs.

12.           Furthermore, now a days it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and when insured amount is claimed, they make such type of excuses. Thus, the denial of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

13.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OPs while denying the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

14.           The surveyor of the OPs in his report Ex.R2 dated 12.03.2022 came to the conclusion that cost of repairing the vehicle is more than Rs.12,00,000/-. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.6,75,000/- and net liability of the OPs is Rs.6,73,000/-. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.6,75,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc.

15.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.6,75,000/- Insured Declared Value (IDV)  to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint  till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.05.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh)

               Member                             Member