Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/114

Seema Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Sethi

20 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:114 dated 22.02.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 20.10.2023.

 

Seema Gupta W/o. Vikas Gupta, C/o. Jati Ram & Sons Sugar Mill Road, Morinda, Distt Ropar-140101.                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through authorized signatory.
2. ‘The Journey Hub’ Adj. Vishal Tower, Main Ferozepur Road, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001, Opp. Gurdev Hospital, through authorized signatory.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Policy issuing office at Division Office No.16, Vulcan Insurance Building, 6^th Floor, 7, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai through its authorized signatory.                                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate

For OP1 and OP3          :         Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Complaint against OP2stands already                                                         dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated                                                      31.10.2022

 

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant and her husband along with two friends hired the services of opposite party No.2 for abroad tour from Amritsar to Singapore for 2 day stay and Singapore to Kualalumpur for 2 day stay with return. Opposite party No.2 also arranged hotel stay, air tickets and taxi services during period of journey and also arranged group overseas travel insurance from opposite party No.1 and 3 from 19.09.2017 with requisite premium having validity from 29.09.2017 to 06.10.2017. Opposite party No.1 and 3 issued one page policy along with Trawell Tag Assist with commencement from 29.09.2017 to 06.10.2017 having coverage of USD100 (equal to Rs.7000/-) and USD1000 (Equal to Rs.70,000/-) in case of travel inconvenience.

                   The complainant further stated that during journey while travelling by air from India on 29.09.2017 for Singapore via Malaysia (KL). She boarded flight back from Singapore on 04.10.2017 for Kualalumpur through flight OD804 dated 04.10.2017 and deposited baggage at Singapore Airport on 04.10.2017 but after reaching Kualalumpur one piece of baggage was not traced/found despite waiting long time. A written complaint dated 04.10.2017 was lodged with Kualalumpur International Airport Authority as per Property Irregularity report. The said bag was later on delivered to the complainant on 06.10.2017. Thereafter, the complainant sent email dated 06.10.2017 to opposite party No.2 to pursue the matter with opposite epartyNo.1 and 3 for settlement of claim against delay and travel inconvenience as per policy plan. The complainant sent claim form dated 12.10.2017 to opposite party No.1 and 3 through registered as well as through email, but her claim was declined vide repudiation letter dated 16.01.2018. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for which she is entitled to compensation. In the end, the complainant prayed for directing the opposite party No.1 and 3 to pay compensation for delay of baggage as per policy terms and conditions as well as to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Complaint against OP2 stands already dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.10.2022.

3.                During the proceedings of the complaint,  the complainant filed application for impleading United India Insurance Company ‘policy issuing office’ as necessary party i.e. OP3, which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2022. Amended title and complaint was filed.

4.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 and 3 filed joint written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability of complaint; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party; lack of jurisdiction etc.  OP1 and OP3 stated that the claim of the complainant was minutely scrutinized by Divisional office No.16, Mumbai of OP1 and it was found that claim is not maintainable as the same is not covered under the policy. As the complainant has not suffered any loss of any kind as such her claim was repudiated by competent authority of OP1 vide repudiation letter dated 16.01.2018.                 

                   On merits, OP1 and OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the factual submission and preliminary objections. OP1 and OP3 averred that the bag/luggage of the complainant was searched and handed over to her before boarding her flight from Kualalumpur for Amritsar Rajasansi Airport on 06.10.2017, which was duly received and accepted by her. As such, she has not suffered any loss of any kind.  Moreover, at that time no objection was raised by the complainant. Even then the complainant lodged complaint/claim which was duly replied by the representative of OP1. The claim of the complainant was falling under Section D Delay of Checked in Baggage and Specific Conditions of the policy. The complainant has not purchased any items and has no wastage of time. OP1and OP3 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.                In support of her claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of itinerary dated 15.09.2017 of The Journey Hub, Ex. C2 is the copy of conformation service voucher, Ex. C3 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C4 is the copy of Trawell Tag, Ex. C5 is the copy of property irregularity report, Ex. C6 is the copy of acceptance of baggage form, Ex. C7 is the copy of  claim form, Ex. C8 to Ex. C17 are the copies of emails, Ex. C18 is the copy of Malaysia Immigration eNTRI Note, Ex. C19 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 16.01.2018 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 and 3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Prem Pahuja, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O-I office, Pakhowal road, Ludhiana along with documents Ex.  R1, Ex. R4 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. R2 is the cop of policy terms and conditions, Ex. R3 is the copy of claim form, Ex.R5 is the copy of itinerary dated 15.09.2017 of The Journey Hub, Ex. R6 is the copy of baggage tags, Ex. R7 to Ex. R9 are the copies of passport of the complainant, Ex. R10 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 16.01.2018  and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with documents produced on record by both the parties.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant availed the services of OP2 for touring abroad from Amritsar to Singapore and from Singapore to Kualalumpur and this fact can be perused from Ex. C1= Ex.R5 itinerary dated 15.09.2017 of  OP2 The Journey Hub as well as from Ex. C2 confirmation service voucher. The details of Ex. C1 = Ex. R5 is given as under:-

Day	Date	City/Terminal/Stopover City	Time	Flight Class Status	Stop/EQP/Flying Time Services
FRI     SAT	29SEP     30SEP	DEP Amritsar Rajasansi   ARR Kuala Lumpur INTL OD – Malino Air Ref. HSJOBF OD Malino Air Reservation Number (Amritsar) : ATQ - OD	2215     0625	OC 272 Economy Conformed	Non-Stop Boeing 737-900 05HR 50MIN Meals
SAT	30SEP	DEP Kuala Lumpur INTL   ARR Singapore Changi Terminal-3 OD – Malino Air Ref. HSJOBF OD Malino Air Reservation Number (Kuala Lumpur) : KUL - OD	0815     0920	OD 601 Economy Conformed	Non-Stop Boeing 737-800 01HR 05MIN Refreshment - Complimentary
WED	04Oct	DEP Singapore Changi Terminal 3 ARR Kuala Lumpur INTL Main Terminal   OD – Malino Air Ref. HSJOBF OD Malino Air Reservation Number (Singapore) : SIN - OD	1220   1320	OD 804 Economy Confirmed	None-Stop Boeing 737-800 01HR 00MIN Refreshment – Complimentary
FRI	05Oct	DEP Kuala Lumpur INTL Main Terminal ARR Amritsar Raja Sansi   OD – Malino Air Ref. HSJOBF OD Malino Air Reservation Number (Kuala Lumpur) : KUL – OD Baggage Allowance 25 KG Per Traveler	1805	OD 271 economy Confirmed	Non-Stop Boeing 737-900 05HR 40MIN Meals

 

It is also an admitted fact that the complainant purchased insurance policy from opposite party No.1 and 3 vide policy Ex. C3= Ex. R1 and R4. It is not disputed that on the completion of penultimate part of his voyage from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, on 04.10.2017, luggage bag of the complainant was found missing on her reaching Kualalmpur. A property irregularity report Ex. C5 was registered  by Malindo Air at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. However, on 06.10.2017 the missing bag was handed over to the complainant vide acceptance of baggage/found items acknowledgement form Ex. C6.  After reaching India, the complainant lodged a claim through claim form dated 12.10.2017 Ex. C7 = Ex. R3 with opposite party No.1 and 3 which was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 16.01.2018 Ex. C19 = Ex. R10 by invoking the Section-D of the policy which reads as under:-

                   “Section D – Delay of checked in baggage:-

This insurance will pay up to the limit of cover shown in the Schedule for necessary emergency purchase of replacement items in the event that the Insured Person suffers a delay of more than 12 hours from the schedules arrival time at the destination for delivery of Baggage that has been checked in by an International Airline for an International outbound flight from the Republic of India OR the transportation expenses incurred in recovering the baggage from airlines.”

9.                So it is evident from the contents of itinerary Ex. C1 that the complainant reached Kuala Lumpur on 29.09.2017 from Amritsar from where she took flight to Singapore on the next date and stayed there till 04.10.2017. Then she returned to Kuala Lumpur where she reported missing of baggage. The luggage was traced out before she actually took flight back to Amritsar. The complainant did not lodge any claim qua any emergency purchases she made during the period which the missing luggage remained untraced. The complainant acknowledged the receipt of the bag vide acceptance/acknowledgement form Ex. C6. So it is crystal clear that the complainant did not suffer any damage. Any contract of insurance comes into operation when insured suffers loss for which the insurance company is bound to reimburse him as per terms and conditions of the policy. In the present case, since there was no loss suffered by the complainant, so the opposite party insurance company cannot be held liable for any claim. Even otherwise, the opposite parties were liable to pay only if destination for the delivery of bag was an international airline for an international out bound flight from Republic of India. In the present case, the flight arrived from Singapore and it was destined to land at Kuala Lumpur. There is another aspect of the case that the concerned airline was a necessary and proper party and without its presence, the claim of the complainant, if any, cannot be adjudicated upon. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 and 3 were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.   

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11 .             Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President        

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.10.2023.

Gobind Ram.