Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/138/2022

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURSIMRAN SINGH WALIA - Opp.Party(s)

PAUL S. SAINI ADV.

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Appeal No	:	A/138/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	19/10/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	30/11/2022

 

 

 

 

 

1]   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: #87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001, through its duly constituted Attorney Sh.Jagdish Mittal, Regional Manager.

 

2]   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Claims Hub, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted Attorney Sh.Jagdish Mittal, Regional Manager.

 

3]   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-II, Opposite Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala (Punjab), through its duly constituted Attorney Sh.Jagdish Mittal, Regional Manager.

…. Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

Gursimran Singh Walia son of Kawaljit Singh Walia, Resident of House No. 523, 1^st Floor, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

          Mr. PREETINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.07.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/362/2021, in the following terms:-

“14. In view of the above discussion, present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

 

i)   to pay the claim of ₹39,98,000/- (being IDV less excess clause) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 06.04.2021 till realization.  The complainant shall, however, get the RC of the vehicle transferred in the name of OPs or get it cancelled.

 

ii)  to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

iii) to pay ₹50,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

15.  This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Respondent/Complainant that in the month of May 2019, he bought a second hand car i.e. Audi A8 bearing No.CH01-AJ-0606 which was duly insured for the period from 01.11.2018 to 31.10.2019 and got the same transferred in his name. Subsequently the Respondent/Complainant got the policy transferred in his name for the remaining period from 29.05.2019 to 31.10.2019. The said car met with an accident on 06.10.2019 at around 1.40 a.m. when the Respondent/Complainant was travelling from Patiala to Chandigarh, caught fire and was fully burnt. DDR regarding the incident was also lodged. The Appellants/Opposite Parties (Insurance Company) was also informed about the accident on 07.10.2019 and Surveyor was appointed. The Respondent/ Complainant also lodged claim with the Appellants/ Opposite Parties. The Surveyor appointed by the Appellants/ Respondents vide his report accepted the claim, however, despite that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties, with a view to not pay the claim, appointed second Surveyor and even Investigators. Appellants/Opposite Parties even after getting reports from different agencies regarding genuineness of the claim, did not reimburse the same and started raising frivolous objections and queries. Left with no alternative, Respondent/ Complainant sent a legal notice asking them to pay the claim and in reply to the same Appellants/ Opposite Parties informed that the claim had been repudiated. Subsequently, in the first week of May (2021), Respondent/Complainant received letter dated 06.04.2021 whereby his claim had been repudiated. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

3.      In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, the Appellants/Respondents filed reply denying that the Respondent/ Complainant purchased the car in question. The Respondent/ Complainant neither disclosed the amount for which he had purchased the vehicle in question nor annexed any document in support of the same. It was admitted that the car in question was insured with the Appellants/ Opposite Parties during the period from 01.11.2018 to 31.10.2019, but, the same was in the name of VLCC Health Care Ltd. It was also admitted that the insurance policy was issued in the name of the Respondent/Complainant from 29.05.2019 to 31.10.2019. It was further admitted that the car was on fire and was fully burnt. It was averred that the Appellants/Opposite Parties have to scrutinize the findings given by the surveyor and case can be got investigated if deemed necessary and the payment of claim is always subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was denied that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties appointed second surveyor and that the surveyor started raising all types of frivolous objections. It was admitted that the claim of the Respondent/ Complainant was found genuine by the investigator. It was stated the insurance policy was obtained by misrepresentation as wrong facts were furnished in the proposal form and the policy is void ab initio and the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 06.04.2021. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of the Respondent/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

5.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

6.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

9.      Record shows, the vehicle in question bearing registration No.CH01-AJ-0606 was duly registered in the name of the Respondent/Complainant and the same is proved from copy of the registration certificate (Annexure C-3), which fact has also not been disputed by the Appellants. Furthermore, as per the insurance policy  the vehicle in question was duly insured in the name of the Respondent/ complainant for the relevant period i.e. 29.05.2019 to 31.10.2019, with the IDV of Rs.40,00,000/-. There is no dispute about the fact that DDR dated 06.10.2019 was lodged with the Police and the Fire Station, Municipal Council, Sirhind-Fatehgarh Sahib vide Fire Call Report dated 11.10.2019 confirmed that the vehicle in question caught fire on 06.10.2019. Intimation about the loss and submission of requisite documents has also been proved on record. The investigation report dated 30.6.2020 submitted by Royal Associates, Investigating & Detective Agency, the supplementary investigation report dated 16.9.2020, along with Forensic Fire Investigation Report have duly been noticed by the Ld. Lower Commission while recording its finding that once there was no dispute regarding genuineness about ownership of the vehicle, validity of the insurance policy, the accident as well as the resultant loss, there was no occasion with the Appellants/OPs to sit over the matter/claim. At any rate, once the policy stood transferred in the name of the subsequent purchaser (Respondent/Complainant) the Appellants/OPs are estopped from raising any dispute qua the legitimacy of the ownership of the vehicle as well as the transactions made. Therefore, the act of the Appellants/OPs in repudiating the genuine claim of the Respondent/complainant vide their letter dated 06.04.2021, to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The Ld. Lower Commission has rightly held that since the vehicle was total loss, therefore, Appellants/OPs are liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle (less excess clause) alongwith compensation for the harassment faced by the complainant and litigation expenses. It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

10.      No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Appellant.

 

11.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.

 

12.      In view of the present Appeal being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

14.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

30^th Nov., 2022                                Sd/-

                                  (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”