DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 106 of 12-04-2018

Decided on : 31-03-2022

Sukhpal Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh R/o Street No. 1, Guru Nanak Dev Basti, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2907/1/C/10, Jindal Complex near Hanuman Chowk, G T Road, Bathinda, through its Manager

2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Head Office : Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No. 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate

For opposite parties : Sh.Vinod Garg, Advocate.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Sukhpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Co. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that complainant was owner of Mahindra Tractor No. PB-13-U/3025. The complainant got the said tractor comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide Policy No. 3380/00546272/000/00 for the period 11.2.2013 to midnight of 10.2.2014. At the time of insurance, the opposite parties provided only Motor Policy Schedule-cum-Certificate of insurance and did not supply the terms and conditions thereof to the complainant.

3. It is alleged that on 13.07.2013 at about 10.00 p.m., the complainant parked the said Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No. PB-13-U/3025, Engine No. 8131, Model 2009 alongwith Trolley in the premises (open yard) of Tarsem Lal and took the key with him. On the next day, the complainant went to the open yard of said Tarsem Lal to take the tractor trolley, but the aforesaid tractor as well as trolley were not there. The complainant searched for his tractor and trolley at his own level and ultimately lodged report with the police of Police Station, Thermal, Bathinda. The police on the statement of the complainant registered FIR No. 84 dated 15.7.2013 under Section 380 IPC. The complainant gave intimation to opposite party No.1 with regard to the theft of Tractor and Trolley and also handed over all the documents to opposite party No.1 for making payment of the claim amount i.e. the insured declared value of Rs. 2,75,000/-.

4. It is also alleged that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 many times and requested for making payment of the claim amount, but the officials of opposite party No. 1 kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and assuring the complainant that the claim is under process. Ultimately the officials of the opposite parties asked the complainant to produce untraceable report of the said Tractor Trolley from the Police and only thereafter the claim amount shall be paid to him. The Police prepared untraced report on 28.3.2014 and the complainant handed over the copy thereof to the opposite party No.1 and requested for making payment of the claim amount with interest.

5. The complainant also alleged that the officials of the opposite parties stated that they will send the papers to opposite party No. 2 and the claim shall be finalized by the officials of Head Office. The complainant has been approaching opposite party No.1 for making payment of the claim amount, but after postponing the matter for about 8-9 months, the officials of opposite party No.1 required the complainant to submit orders from the learned court regarding acceptance of the untraceable report. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, Bathinda approved the untraceable report on 18.07.2017 for submitting the same before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate, Bathinda.

6. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties are withholding the genuine claim of the complainant amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/- without assigning any reason. Due to adamant attitude and behavior of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension and agony for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.

7. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay to complainant claim amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 14-7-2013 till the date of payment and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation in addition to additional or alternative relief.

8. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared thorugh counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In their joint written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination, which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. That the complaint is hopelessly time barred as the claim relates the year 2013 whereas the complaint has been filed in 2018. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite parties. The complainant has concealed the fact that the complainant did not pursue the claim and did not provide required documents for processing and decision of the claim. That the claim is premature as the complainant has approached this Commission without completing the formalities or processing of claim. That the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the opposite parties reserve their right to decide the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy as and when the required documents are submitted. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against opposite parties. That the complaint is not maintainable in the present form.

9. On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that complete policy with terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant. In further reply, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite parties have prayed that if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to any relief only in that case the complainant may be directed to submit the documents and complete the formalities so that claim may be decided as per terms and conditions of policy. It has also been pleaded that if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim on total loss basis, the complainant may be directed to handover keys and the registration certificate duly transferred in favour of opposite parties and also to execute letter of subrogation and power of attorney before any compensation is paid to the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his two affidavits dated 31-8-18 and 11-4-18 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of untraced report (Ex. C-3), photocopy of R.C. (Ex C-4) and photocopy of policy schedule (Ex. C-5).

11. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit dated 20-6-18 of Satyabratta Das (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of Insurance policy schedule cum certificate (Ex.OP-1/2), photocopy of claim form (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of FIR No. 84 dated 15-7-13 (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of statement of Jatinder Singh (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/8), photocopy of customer detail (Ex.OP-1/7) and photocopy of policy alongwith terms and conditions (Ex. OP-1/8).

12. Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

14. In the case in hand, there is no dispute between the parties that tractor bearing registration No. PB-13-U/3025 of complainant was comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide Policy No. 3380/00546272/000/00 for the period from 11.2.2013 to 10.2.2014 for the IDV of Rs. 2,75,000/- (Ex. C-5). The said tractor of the complainant alongwith trolley was stolen away on the night of 13-7-2013. FIR No. 84 dated 15-7-2013 (Ex.C-3) under Section 380 IPC in Police Station, Thermal, Bathinda, was registered in this regard. The complainant also gave intimation to the opposite parties regarding theft of vehicle in question.

15. The opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainant till date. The plea taken by the opposite parties is that the complainant did not pursue the claim and did not provide required documents for processing and decision of claim. Admittedly vehicle in question of the complainant was stolen away and FIR dated 15-7-2013 was got registered by complainant in this regard. The complainant also obtained untraceable report on 18.07.2017 duly approved by Deputy Superintendent of Police City-2 (Ex. C-3). The opposite parties have not mentioned in written reply which particular documents are required for processing the claim. The opposite parties have given vague reply to the complaint of the complainant that complainant has not furnished the required documents. When opposite parties have failed to point out any specific document due to which claim of the complainant kept pending, this act of the opposite parties proved their intention to delay/reject the genuine claim of the insured.

16. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled New India assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Usha Yadav 2008(3) RCR Civil 111 has observed that :

    “Cash rich Insurance Company indulging in luxury litigation to repudiate claim of the insured – It seems that the Insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the claim.”

17. Therefore, it is proved that opposite parties have unnecessarily kept pending and did not settle the claim of the complainant without any solid reason. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is entitled to IDV i.e. 2,75,000/- as per insurance policy (Ex. C-5) of vehicle in question.

18. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to pay to complainant Rs. 2,75,000/- being the IDV of vehicle in question, with interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 12-04-2018 (date of institution of complaint) till payment.

19. The complainant is directed to sign the documents, if any, required by opposite parties and complete the other formalities, if any, required by law for release of claim.

20. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

22. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    31-3-2022

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member

     

    (Paramjeet Kaur)

    Member