STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB DAKSHIN MARG,
SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.711 of 2013
Date of institution : 01.07.2013
Date of decision : 27.02.2015
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Amolak Bhawan, G.T. Road, Moga.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Surindera Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager Ram Avtar.
…….Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
1. Rajbir Kaur W/o Sh. Kultaran Singh S/o Buta Singh;
2. Satwinder Kaur W/o Buta Singh; Both R/o Village Longodeva, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. …Respondents/Complainants
First Appeal against the order dated 30.04.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh,
President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
1
For the appellants : Shri Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri K.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 30.04.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay the insured value of the vehicle (Rs.8,71,000/-), along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 13.04.2012, within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order and they were also burdened with Rs.10,000/-, as litigation expenses.
2. The complainants averred, in their complaint, that Kultaran Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and son of complainant No.2, was the registered owner of the vehicle, bearing registration No.PB-29D(T)4- 5377, which was got insured with the opposite parties for the period 17.11.2011 to 16.11.2012, for Rs.8,72,000/-, after the payment of Rs.25,679/-, as the premium. On 13.01.2012, said Kultaran Singh, along with Gurpreet Singh and others, was going from village Jalal to village Ramuwala on this vehicle which was being driven by Gurpreet Singh, when it suddenly developed a defect, became uncontrollable and struck in the tree by the roadside. Kultaran Singh died at the spot on account of the injuries sustained by him. Regarding the accident, DDR No.14 dated 16.01.2012 was registered in Police Station Dayalpura. In the accident, the vehicle was totally damaged. They immediately informed the opposite parties about the accident and lodged a claim with them; being the legal heirs of Kultaran Singh. The opposite parties appointed the surveyor for assessing the loss to the vehicle and the same was declared by him, as total loss. The vehicle was brand new and, as such, for the total loss they were entitled to the sum of Rs.8,71,000/-, after deducting Rs.1,000/- from the IDV on account of the excess clause. They made a number of requests to the opposite parties to settle their claim, but they failed to do so. Even the service of the legal notice dated 22.12.2012 did not yield any result. The opposite parties had been making an offer to make the payment on the basis of 75% of the claim amount, which was not acceptable to them; as the vehicle was total loss. The surveyor and officials of the opposite parties had been assuring them that in case they submit blank prepaid receipt, the amount would be released in their favour. They did submit the blank prepaid receipt as full and final settlement of the claim, but still the opposite parties are lingering on the matter, without any cogent reason. As a result of these illegal and unwarranted acts of the opposite parties, they suffered mental tension and agony; for which, they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. They prayed for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) to pay the insurance claim of Rs.8,72,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till the realization of that amount;
ii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment; and
iii) to pay Rs.20,000/-, as costs of litigation.
2
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply, they admitted that the vehicle was got insured with them by Kultaran Singh, for the period mentioned in the complaint and that intimation of the accident was given to them, upon which Rajesh Wadhawan, Surveyor was appointed for assessing the loss to the vehicle. They also admitted that the complainants had agreed to accept the 75% of the amount, for which the vehicle had been insured and had given an affidavit to that effect. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that Kultaran Singh had purchased the vehicle and had obtained temporary RC for the period 17.11.2011 to 16.12.2011. The regular registration was issued on 28.02.2012 and, as such, the vehicle was not registered on the day, the accident took place (13.01.2012). Thus, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. After the complainants gave their consent for acceptance of 75% of the loss, the file along with their consent was sent to the higher authorities for further action; as that claim was within the financial authority of the Head Office, New Delhi. However, the complainants are not entitled to any such insurance, having violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and rules and regulations of the Motor Vehicles Act. They have no locus standi to file this complaint and the same is not maintainable. There was no deficiency in service on their part. The complainants have concealed the material and patent facts from the District Forum and have not come to it with clean hands. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with special costs; being false and frivolous.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the District Forum committed an illegality, while allowing the complaint without going into the aspect of the case that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as the vehicle was being plied by Kultaran Singh, insured, without getting the same registered from the Registering Authority. That was fundamental breach of the terms and conditions and is a valid ground for repudiation of the claim made by the complainants. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, the order passed by the District Forum be set aside and the complaint filed by the complainants be dismissed.
7. It was never the case pleaded by the opposite parties that they repudiated the claim of the complainants, on the ground that the vehicle was being driven in a public place, without getting the same registered and, as such, violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the admitted case of the parties that the consent of the complainants was obtained for the payment of 75% of the claim. Thus, the opposite parties never intended to repudiate their claim and the same has still not been settled by them.
8. As per the regulations/instructions issued by the I.R.D.A., the claims, made under the insurance policies, are ordinarily to be settled within one month of the submission of the claim and where surveyor is appointed, that period is extendable to six months. Thus, the opposite parties were required to process and settle the claim of the complainants within six months, as they had appointed a surveyor for assessing the loss to the vehicle. They failed to do so; which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The question, whether the claim could have been repudiated on the ground of non-registration of the vehicle on the day of the accident, was to be decided after the submission of the claim, by the opposite parties; one way or the other. The District Forum should have issued a direction to the opposite parties to process and settle the claim of the complainants, within the period to be fixed by it. In case, the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties, then the ground, on which the same was repudiated, was to be evaluated by the District Forum. It erred while deciding the complaint, without giving such a direction.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. For the deficiency in service, in not processing and settling the claim within the time frame laid down by the
3
I.R.D.A., the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainants. The opposite parties are directed to process and settle the claim of the complainants within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order. In case, the complainants will feel prejudiced by the decision taken by the opposite parties, they shall have a right to file fresh complaint.
10. The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They had deposited another sum of Rs.9,80,381/- on 24.07.2013, as per the directions of this Commission. Out of these amounts, a sum of Rs.40,000/-(awarded as compensation in favour of the complainants vide this order) shall be remitted by the registry to the complainants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft and the remaining entire amount, along with interest which has accrued on both the above amounts of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.9,80,381/- shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
MEMBER
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
February 27, 2015 MEMBER (Gurmeet S)
4