Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/107/2018

EPSA Moudgil - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Hervinder Kaur Adv.

16 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	107 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	20.02.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	16.08.2018

 

 

 

 

Epsa Moudgil d/o Sh.Umesh Moudgil, r/o H.No.99, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana)    

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  United India Insurance Company, SCONo.149-150, 1^st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its representative.

 

2]  United India Insurance Company Limited., Divisional Office No.16, Vulcan Insurance Building, 6^th Floor, 7 Veer  Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 through its Managing Director.

 

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

[2]

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	108 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	20.02.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	16.08.2018

 

 

 

 

 

Epsa Moudgil d/o Sh.Umesh Moudgil, r/o H.No.99, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana)   

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  United India Insurance Company, SCONo.149-150, 1^st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its representative.

 

2]  United India Insurance Company Limited., Divisional Office No.16, Vulcan Insurance Building, 6^th Floor, 7 Veer  Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 through its Managing Director.

 

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

Argued By: Sh.Kanwar Gill, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Harinder Singh, Adv. for OPs.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                Since the identical questions of law and facts are involved in above the above mentioned) consumer complaints, so they have been heard together and decided with this common order.

 

2]       The facts are being taken from the Complaint Case No.107 of 2018 – “EPSA Moudgil Vs. United India Insurance Company & Anr. as well as from Complaint Case No.108 of 2018 – EPSA Moudgil Vs. United India Insurance Company & Anr.”

 

3]       As per the case, the complainant purchased Travel Insurance (Travel Tag) from OPs for travelling in Europe from 21.11.2016 to 18.12.2016 vide policy Ann.C-1 and went to Europe on a leisure trip on 21.11.2016. 

         It is averred that the complainant while in NICE, France on 27.11.2016, a burglar stole her passport along with luggage, which was reported to the local police (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  It is also averred that due to loss/theft of the passport, the complainant had to travel from NICE, France to Milan, Italy through bus (Ann.C-6) for getting a duplicate passport along with Schengen Visa-stamp.  It is submitted that the Consulate General of India at Italy issued temporary passport valid from 29.11.2016 to 28.2.2017. It is also submitted that the complainant had to bare the travelling expenses and also charges for accommodation as she could not return to India without a valid passport. It is further submitted that the complainant lost all her belongings due to theft/burglary of passport and baggage, so she had to immediately purchase the utilities to survive.  It is stated that the complainant had to spend more than 1000 Euros due to said unanticipated situation (Ann.C-7 colly.). It is also stated that the complainant immediately informed the customer care service center of traveltag about the theft of passport and baggage, but the OPs did not provide any assistance.  It is also stated that after return to India, the complainant applied for reissuance of passport and also lodged a claim with the OPs for the loss suffered by her.  However, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 14.11.2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground.

         The facts in second Complaint Case No.108 of 2018 – EPSA Moudgil Vs. United India Insurance Company & Anr. are that the complainant, during the said insurance period, while in NICE, France on 27.11.2016, also had borrowed a car from a known friend namely Kanwardeep Singh i.e. Mercedes Benz C 229 bearing Regd. No.EG-937-PT.  It is averred that the said car got damaged.  It is averred that the said car was taken by the complainant in a good condition with an assurance that the same would be returned on as is basis & the upkeep of the car was the personal responsibility of the complainant.  It is stated that the said car was severely damaged by the burglar, while the complainant was on city excursion. It is also stated that the said car was legally parked in a public parking and the complainant incurred a loss of Euro 1871.23 for damage of the car by third party (Ann.C-3 colly.). The complainant lodged an FIR with local police for the damage done to the car (Ann.C-4).  It is submitted that the complainant then borrowed another car bearing Regd. No.MBW-218D-BMW Tourer and the same was also damaged while it was parked and the complainant had to bare a loss of Euros 394.75 (Ann.C-5 colly.).  It is also submitted that the complainant was served with a legal notice for the loss/damage for a sum of Rs.1,35,123.31 (Euros 2265.98) done to the cars (Ann.C-6). It is submitted that there has been a personal liability claim for damage to third party i.e. damage to cars borrowed for excursion. It is pleaded that the damages to the car were not intentional or due to personal negligence, but were accidental and unforeseen, for which the complainant suffered huge monetary loss.  It is also pleaded that the complainant was protected against the said loss by the travel insurance policy in question.  The complainant lodged a claim with the OPs, but they did nothing.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above acts & conducts of the OPs as deficiency in service on their part.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the version of the complainant itself proves that the loss of passport is claimed to be occurred on 27.11.2016 and with regard to loss, no information was given to OPs or its Assist Agency i.e. ‘American Assist Agency’ till lodging of the claim with OPs in India on 6.9.2017 i.e. after expiry of more than 9 months of said alleged incident, which amounts to violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy as well as against the settled law of the land wherein it is specifically held that immediate intimation is to be given, so that the insurance company can verify the genuineness of claim. It is stated that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.11.2017 due to violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy, which are mandatory in nature.

         Qua the claim under personal liability clause, the OPs submitted that the complainant is not a third party to the owner of the said vehicle and more so, the complainant did not disclose complete particulars of the owner of the said vehicles.  It is also submitted that the complainant returned to India on 12.12.2016, but also after returning to India, she did not chose to intimate the OPs with regard to alleged incident till 6.9.2017 that is too after the expiry of 9 months, which proves that the present complaint is a result of an afterthought. It is stated that the facts regarding the claim received by the car owners from their insurance companies as well as declaration from them that they did not take any claim from their insurance companies with regard to loss, is not there, which proves that the present compliant filed by the complainant is with sole purpose to extract money from the OPs concealing the true facts.

         The rent agreements for the cars in question have been entered into between the Husband of the complainant i.e. Kanwardeep Singh (which she falsely claimed to be her friend in the complaint) and the car owner; thus the complainant has not locus standi to file any claim under the policy.

         Denying other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party made in their reply.   

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The record of both the complaint cases transpires that the complainant during her visit to foreign land obtained Europe Travel Insurance (TrawellTag) from OPs for the period from 21.11.2016 to 18.12.2016 for travelling in Europe by making payment of Rs.1217/- as premium.  Vide said Policy No.0216002616991674207 (Ann.C-1), the complainant was insured for Loss of baggage (checked in) – USD 550, Loss of Passport – USD 250 and Personal Liability for USD 200000 etc.  The complainant vide two different FIRs, dated 27.11.2016 (Ann.C-3) registered her complaints about the loss of passport and damage to the borrowed cars. 

 

7]       It is so claimed by the complainant that both of her claims as raised against the loss of Passport and personal liability towards third person have been wrongfully rejected by the OPs.

 

8]       A thorough perusal of record of both the claims reveal that taking recourse to relevant terms & conditions of the policy, both the claims have been repudiated by the OPs.  The record further reveals that the OPs vide letter dated 14.11.2017 (Anns.C-10 & C-9) repudiated both the claims stating that the claim was reported on 6.9.2017 i.e. after approximately almost 9 months from the date of incidence and since the complainant did not intimate the claim immediately to American Assist Agency, it amounts to violation of terms & conditions of the policy.  The complainant negating such factum claimed that the due intimation of loss was sent to the OPs by sending an email on the official email address of the Opposite Party on 16.3.2017, but the said messages were blocked.  It is claimed that the complainant also sent her claim via courier dated 23.3.2017 (Ann.C-7).

9]       It is apt to mention over here that the version of the complainant qua timely intimating the OPs about the loss, is not supported with any cogent & convincing document, thus the same is not tenable.

 

10]      Certainly the claims were lodged with delay with the OPs. However, in our opinion, the delay in lodging of the claims shall not hamper the investigation and processing of the claims lodged by the complainant along with all necessary documents. Therefore, we deem it proper to direct the OPs to decide the claims of the complainant on merit by taking into account all the documents submitted by her, terms & conditions of the policy, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

11]      In view of the above, the present complaint and another connected complaint case No.108/2018, both are hereby disposed of with directions to the OPs to decide both the claims lodged by the complainant on merit by taking into account all the documents submitted by her as well as the terms & conditions of the policy, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  However, there is no order as to cost & compensation as no deficiency in service, at this stage, is proved on the part of OPs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

16^th August, 2018                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                     (RAVINDER SINGH)

                                                                                   MEMBER