DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  605

                                                Instituted on:    15.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       04.05.2018

Subhreet Kaur Ghumman Daughter of Paramjeet Singh Ghumman, resident of Village Jhunda, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Above Bank of Baroda, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Gagandeep Sibia, Adv.

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

1.             Ms. Subhreet Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs number 1 and 2 by getting insured her Honda City car bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-5037 vide cover note number 11170531160112340377 for the period from 16.12.2016 to 15.12.2017 for Rs.9,00,000/- by paying the requisite premium.  The case of the complainant is that on 15.2.2017, the vehicle in question was being driven by Ramandeep Singh Ahluwalia and suddenly a cow came in front of the car and as such the car struck to the footpath at Mohali and damaged badly.  Thereafter the complainant immediately intimated about the loss of the car to the OPs and as such the car was sent to Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Mohali for its repairs.  It is further averred that the repairer charged an amount of Rs.2,91,550/- and issued bill invoice number SER-INV-DD-171-1617-12017 dated 25.3.2017 and the complainant paid the amount vide receipt number 98 and 99 dated 6.4.2017. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has wrongly availed NCB as such the complainant was held not entitled for any claim, though the amount of no claim bonus to the tune of Rs.3302/- was got deposited by the OPs vide receipt dated 30.5.2017.  Further case of the complainant is that he requested the OPs 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.2,91,550/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

2.             In the written reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the car in question was insured with the OPs. It is stated further that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OPs on the ground of misrepresentation/wrong declaration regarding NCB and accidental history of the vehicle. The complainant had availed the claim of Rs.25,387/- in the previous insurance policy number ILG/10185921 issued by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., but the complainant has declared in the proposal form that no claim has been received by her and availed the NCB of 20%.  It is also admitted that thereafter the complainant deposited Rs.3302/- on account no claim bonus.  However, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated, as such, the complaint is said to be wrong and without any basis.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-5037 from the OP number 1 vide policy number 11170531160112340377 for the period from 16.12.2016 to 15.12.2017 on comprehensive basis by paying the requisite premium of Rs.13,875/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.Ex.C-4.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident and damaged badly and suffered huge loss and it is not in dispute that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP number 1 about the accident, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had earlier lodged the claim with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance company Limited and obtained a claim amount of Rs.25,387/- in the previous policy and has got insured the vehicle from the Ops by claiming no claim bonus, as such he is not entitled to get any claim.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it was the duty of the OPs to get the matter regarding no claim bonus verified from the previous insurer within a period of 21 days of the issuance of the insurance cover note and it is not the stage to deny the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant wrongly claimed no claim bonus at the time of getting the insurance of the vehicle.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs have got deposited the amount of Rs.3302/-  i.e. no claim bonus amount awarded to the complainant at the time of issuance of the insurance policy. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the Ops got deposited the amount of Rs.3302/- from the complainant vide receipt Ex.C-8. Now, the case file reveals that the Ops got deposited the amount of no claim bonus from the complainant and now we feel that even thereafter there was no ground for repudiation of the rightful claim of the complainant.   If assuming that the complainant had earlier claimed no claim bonus wrongly, then it is not fair on the part of the Ops to repudiate the claim in toto and the claim should be paid after deducting 20% of the claim amount.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited United India Insurance Company Limited versus M/s. Jindal Poly Buttons Limited 2017(2) CPR 553 (NC), wherein in the similar circumstances of the case, the claim was allowed to be paid after deduction of 20% of the claim amount.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has also cited Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and another versus Gulzari Singh 2010(2) CPJ 272 (NC), whereby the Hon’ble National Commission has held the repudiation of claim as justified in case of wrong declaration regarding no claim bonus.  But, this citation is not at all helpful to the case of the Ops as in the present case, the Ops have got deposited the amount of Rs.3302/- which was awarded as no claim bonus. 

7.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. In the present case, the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.2,91,549/- as is evident from the copy of invoice, Ex.C-12 issued by M/s. Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Mohali and as such we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs  are directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount after deduction of 20% of Rs.2,91,549/- which comes to Rs.2,33,240/-.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,33,240/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.11.2017 till realisation in full. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of  litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OPs within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of the order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.  

                Pronounced.

                May 4, 2018.

                                                        (Sarita Garg)

                                                    Presiding Member

                                                    (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                            Member