Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/831/2015

Sarabjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Judgepreet Singh warring

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/831/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	15/12/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	08/09/2016

 

 

 

 

 

(1)  Sarabjeet Kaur aged 26 years wife of Late Sh.Parveen Kumar.

 

(2)  Navjot Kaur minor daughter aged 4½ years of Late Sh.Parveen Kumar.

 

(3)  Shiv minor Son aged 1½ years of Late Sh.Parveen Kumar.

 

     Complainants No.2 and 3 being minors through their mother and natural guardian Complainant No.1 Sarabjeet Kaur.

 

(4)  Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (mother of deceased Sh.Parveen Kumar) wife of Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar.

 

     All residents of House No.179, Preet Nagar, Derabassi, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 …………… Complainants.

 

VERSUS

 

(1)  Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Head office, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur – 302022 (Rajasthan), through its Principal Officer.

 

(2)  Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 178, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

……………  Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Judgepreet Singh Warring, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Vinod Arya, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that Truck make SML ISUZU- Sartaj bearing Regn.No.PB-65Z-5429 owned by the deceased Sh. Parveen Kumar was duly insured with the Opposite Parties for the period from 18.8.2014 to 17.08.2015. Unfortunately, the aforesaid Truck met with an accident on 06.12.2014 and was badly damaged. In the said accident, Sh. Parveen Kumar also died. An FIR to this effect was lodged with the Police Station Menathar, Moradabad (U.P). The Opposite Parties were duly informed about the accident and necessary claim was also lodged with them accompanying all the requisite documents. Pursuant thereto, the Complainants made a number of visits to the Opposite Parties for settlement of their claim, but they dilly-dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. It has been averred that the Opposite Parties got the aforesaid vehicle repaired from the authorized dealer who raised an invoice dated 23.5.2015 for Rs.3,98,722/- and also claimed parking charges from the date of invoice from the Complainants. However, as a bolt from blue, vide letter dated 02.06.2015, the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the Complainants. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainants have filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case have pleaded that there was delay of 52 days in intimation to the Opposite Parties. The alleged loss took place on 06.12.2014 and the claim as intimated on 27.01.2015 and thus, the Complainants had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and on that account the claim of the Complainants has not been reimbursed. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

 

6.      The basic facts of the case have been admitted by the Opposite Parties. The Complainants being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Parveen Kumar, were solely dependent upon the income of the deceased who died in an accident on 06.12.2014, have approached this Forum against the repudiation of their claim by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 02.06.2015, copy of which is at Annexure C-10.

 

7.      After appraising the entire evidence and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the Opposite Parties are bound to settle the claim of the Complainants, as the vehicle was duly insured with them and the action of the Opposite Parties in refusing to pay the claim of the Complainants in respect of the aforesaid vehicle vide letter dated 02.06.2016, even after several requests made by them amounts to deficiency in service.

 

8.      At any rate, the Complainants are layman and not aware about the technicalities and procedure to approach the Opposite Parties for getting the relief of insurance immediately after the unfortunate death of Sh. Parveen Kumar. There is no doubt about the fact that the Complainants were in great shock after the death of Parveen Kumar and were busy in performing his last rites and other social obligations, due to which they could not inform the Opposite Parties immediately after the death of Sh. Parveen Kumar, who was the sole bread winner of the family.

 

9.      In the instant case, the incident took place on 06.12.2014 and FIR was lodged with the P.S. Menathar, Moradabad (U.P) on 07.12.2014. It is thus evident that the FIR was lodged on the next day without any delay. Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the Complainants by the Opposite Parties in toto on the ground that there had been a delay of 52 days in intimation regarding the incident to them, is totally unjust and unfair.     

 

10.      This is an admitted fact that on the one hand, Opposite Parties had appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,85,010/-, but on the other hand they denied the claim of the Complainants on the vague ground of delayed intimation, notwithstanding the fact that the Complainants furnished all the documents to Opposite Parties which were asked by them.  

 

11.      In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that Opposite Parties have miserably failed in their duties towards the insured and the pain and loss that the Complainants have gone through is solely due to their negligent act. We feel that having created a shield for themselves in coining the lame excuse of delayed intimation also amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Our views also gather strength from the observations of the Hon’ble Justice RANJIT SINGH in Civil Writ Petition No.3996 of 2011 wherein it is held that Insurance companies are charging hefty premium for insuring the vehicles. Once the question of liability arises the companies resort to one technical objection and the other. These companies really chase people and literally promise everything at the time of selling policy. It is usual to see people struggle to run after Agents and Surveyors to get their rightful claims.  Such agents then look other way and make insurers to make rounds to company offices. Insurers are then made to approach the Courts and are even dragged to this Court on one technical plea or the other. No one really is made to read the terms while making him to sign on the printed forms for selling policies. This attitude must change.

 

12.      The judgments produced by the Opposite Parties are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because these judgments relate to the theft cases, but present case is a case of accident of vehicle, and the damage to the vehicle itself is the evidence to support the contention of the Complainants.

 

13.      Hence, on the above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct Opposite Parties to release the amount of the claim as per the survey report (Annexure R-1), by which the assessment of the loss is calculated as Rs.1,85,010/-. We further saddle Opposite Parties with the consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @ 12% p.a. on the entire amount that stands due against them, except for the cost of litigation.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08^th September, 2016                                       Sd/-                

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                                Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

Sd/-               

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                              MEMBER