State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. & ... vs Jageshwar Singh & Ors. on 15 September, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/2016/260
Instituted on : 25.06.2016
1) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Through : General Manager,
Reliance General Insurance, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group,
Registered Office - Reliance Centre, 19, Balchand Hirachand Marg,
Ballad Estate,
Mumbai 400001
2) Relaince General Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Manager, Office - 570, Rectifire House,
Naigam Cross Road, Wadala (West), Mumbai 400031
Through : 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, G.E. Road,
Raipur (C.G.) ..... Appellants
Vs.
1. Jageshwar Singh, aged 55 years,
S/o Shivratan Singh,
R/o : Village Beljhariya, Tahsil Masturi,
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Kishan Tractors Works Shop,
Through : Prop. Kishan Chakradhari,
Near Indore Body Builders, Pendra Road,
Tehsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3. Magma Fincorp Limited,
Through : Branch Manager, Local Office -
Rajendra Nagar Chowk,
Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) .... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri Dinesh Verma, for the appellants.
Shri O.P. Agrawal, for respondent No.1.
None for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
// 2 //
ORDER
Dated : 15/09/2016 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/158/2014. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :
1) The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 will pay to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order a sum of Rs.5,84,250/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) which is Insured Declared Value of the accidented vehicle.
2) The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony.
3) The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 will pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
4) The O.P.No.4 shall bear its own cost.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is a farmer and he purchased a tractor manufactured by New Holand Company from the O.P.No.3 with the financial assistance of the O.P.No.4. The model number of the tractor is NEW HOLAND 4010, // 3 // ENGINE NO./CHASSIS No.D70524/6199671. At the time of purchasing tractor, the O.P. No.3 met the complainant with agent of the O.P. No.4. After getting completing all the formalities regarding the finance of the vehicle, the premium amount of the insurance was deducted from the financed amount. The Finance Company told the complainant that there is an agreement between Finance Company and the O.P. No.1 and O.P.No.2. If the complainant wants to obtain financed amount, then he would required to take insurance policy from the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2. As the complainant was not aware from the legal facts and other legal procedure, therefore, on the basis of assurance given by the O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 he obtained insurance policy from the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2. The employees of the Finance Company made arrangement to meet the complainant with R. Jagdish Rao, who is agent of the O.PNo.1 & O.P.No.2. Jagdish Rao informed that during the period of subsistence of the insurance policy, if any damage is caused to the insured vehicle, then all expenses and damage would be paid by the Insurance Company. The complainant believed on the version of the agent Jagdish Rao and obtained the policy from the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2. The number of the insurance policy is 1501722343002503 and cover note no. is 313000142172. The vehicle in question is insured with the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 for the period from 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2013. On 27.02.2013 one child namely Manish Kumar Nayak met with accident with vehicle in question and due to the accident, , some unknown persons have burnt the tractor of the // 4 // complainant. Lal Chand Puri lodged report before Police Station, Marwahi. Initially offence No.0/2013 was registered under Section 435 IPC and thereafter regular First Information No.38/2013 was registered on 27.02.2013 by Police Station, Marwahi. Due to the said accident, the vehicle in question was completely burnt. As during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was damaged, therefore, the complainant submitted claim form in the office of the O.P.No.1 & 2 for getting compensation The O.P.No.1 sent letter dated 03.09.2013 to the complainant in which documents were demanded from him and within 2- 4 days of receipt of the letter, the complainant submitted all relevant documents to the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2. The Surveyor of the Insurance Company examined the vehicle of the complainant that it comes in the category of total loss. The vehicle in question was completely damaged, therefore, the complainant was entitled for getting entire price of the vehicle in question, but for a long time, the Insurance Company did not make any correspondence regarding payment of his claim. The complainant through agent of the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 contacted to office of the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 and he was informed that the claim case No.2131024119 has already been closed, whereas the complainant has not received any notice regarding repudiation of his claim and has also not received any letter till date that on what ground his claim has been closed. The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 without any justified ground has closed the claim of the complainant. The complainant paid premium amount and // 5 // obtained the insurance policy from the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2. During subsistence of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with accident and the complainant did not violate terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, he is entitled to entire claim amount from the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The O.P.No.3 & O.P.No.4 are also liable because they forced the complainant to obtain policy from the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 and on the basis of assurance given by the OPs, the complainant obtained insurance policy. The vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant, but the Insurance Company did not pay the claim amount to him and also did not given any information to the complainant regarding settlement of his claim and repudiation of his claim, which shows deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2. The complainant sent legal notice to the O.P.No.1 to 3 on 26.05.2014 but inspite of damage of the vehicle completely, they did not give the entire cost of the vehicle to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint.
3. The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 have filed their written statement and averred that since despite repeated request vide letters dated 03.09.2013, 14.08.2013 and 08.07.2013, the complainant failed to produce copy of Driving Licence, Fitness, RC Book, Criminal papers and other requisite // 6 // documents and even after service of letter to the complainant, he failed to produce the same therefore claim has been closed. The vehicle was under
Hire Purchase Agreement with the Bank namely Magma Finance and HP/Lease agreement has not been terminated between the Finance Company and complainant till date the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 have continuously and repeatedly made a request to complainant to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Finance Company as the HP/Lease Agreement has not been terminated and upon the production of same the amount so assessed by the Surveyor will be disbursed accordingly but till date the complainant has failed to do so and has filed instant complaint and same is premature and deserves to be dismissed as due to inaction on the part of the complainant. The matter is pending for consideration and without NOC from Finance Company, it is difficult to release the amount. Even the complainant has not impleaded the Finance Company as party in the complainant and for non-joinder of necessary party the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In case of total loss Insured Declared Value (IDV) is payable. The complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 as after incident claim was registered well within time and due to inaction on the part of the complainant, the claim has been closed. No additional premium has been received to cover the Fire Insurance. The O.P.No.1 & O.P. No.2 have not committed any deficiency in service, therefore, they are not liable to pay any interest or penalty to the complainant. For want of // 7 // documents the claim is pending. The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 have not committed any deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum none appeared for the O.P.No.3 inspite of service, therefore, the O.P.No.3 was proceeded ex-parte.
5. The O.P.No.4 has filed its written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant against it in the complaint. The O.P.No.4 has averred that Reliance General Insurance Company is an independent General Insurance Company. The O.P.No.4 Magma Fincorp Limited has no agreement with the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The borrower, who obtains financial assistant from the O.P.No.4, got insure the vehicle as per their convenience. The Finance Company is not giving advice to the borrower that to get insure his vehicle from a particular insurance company. The complainant himself voluntarily got insured his vehicle from Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. The O.P.No.4 being a Finance Company, provided financial assistance to the complainant. The Insurance Company independently insured the vehicle in question as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If any accident is occurred with the vehicle in question and at that time the vehicle in question is being plied by following terms and conditions of the insurance policy, then only the Insurance Company is liable to compensate. In case of hypothecated vehicle, the Insurance Company // 8 // will pay the insured amount through Finance Company, who financed the vehicle. The O.P. No.4 has no concern with the sum assured. The O.P.No.4 has not provided any service regarding insurance to the complainant. The complainant has unnecessarily made party to the O.P.No.4 in the complaint. No cause of action has accrued against the O.P.No.4. The Finance Company is not liable to provide the insured amount. The O.P.No.4 is not liable for the deficiency in service committed by the Insurance Company. The O.P. No.4 did not force the complainant to get the vehicle insured from Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The O.P.No.4 has not provided any service to the complainant regarding insurance. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P.No.4.
6. The complainant has filed documents. The documents are Reliance Miscellaneous and Special Types of Vehicles Package Policy Schedule, Particulars regarding vehicle of the complainant, First Information Report, letter given by the O.P.No.3 to the complainant, postal receipt, registered notice dated 26.05.2014 sent by Ku. Vibha Nahrel, Advocate to the Reliance General Insurance and Kishan Tractors Workshop, intimation given by the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 regarding closure of the claim case, photographs of the vehicle of the complainant, acknowledgements, letter dated 17.04.2014 sent by the complainant to The Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance // 9 // Limited, Raipur (C.G.), Form of Driving Licence of Bishambhar Singh and Certificate of Registration.
7. The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 have filed document - Annexure R-1 which are letters dated 03.09.2013, 14.08.2013 and 08.07.2013 sent by Reliance General Insurance to the complainant.
8. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint and directed the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 to pay amounts to the complainant as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
9. Shri Dinesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) has argued that learned District Forum has committed mistake in awarding compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant) The complaint of the respondent No.1 (complainant) is pre-mature. The complainant pleaded that the loss to the vehicle in question had occurred due to fire, but the respondent No.1 (complainant) has not been able to prove the above fact. The claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant) has not been finally settled by the Insurance Company because required documents have not been submitted by the respondent No.1 (complainant) to the Insurance Company and without documents, it is not possible for the Insurance Company to finally settle the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant). Copy of driving licence, Fitness, RC // 10 // book, and other relevant documents, which are necessary for settlement of claim, have not been submitted by the respondent No.1 (complainant) to the Insurance Company. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant without accrual cause of action, therefore, prima facie, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and impugned order passed by the District Forum, may be set aside.
10. Shri O.P. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (complainant) has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum and submitted that all relevant documents as required for settlement of the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant) were submitted by the respondent No.1 (complainant) before the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2). The appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) without giving pre-intimation to the respondent No.1 (complainant) have closed the claim, which comes in the category of deficiency in service. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission and the appeal filed by the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) is liable to be dismissed.
11. None appeared for the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.3) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.4) before us on 26.08.2016, when the case is fixed for final arguments.
// 11 //
12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) and respondent No.1 (complainant) and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order.
13. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has filed copy of insurance policy. From perusal of the insurance policy, it appears that the vehicle in question is insured with the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) for the period from 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2013. The accident took place on 27.02.2013. It is established that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2).
14. The appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) have filed document Annexure R/1 which are letters dated 08.07.2013, 14.08.2013 and 03.09.2013 sent by Reliance General Insurance to the respondent No.1 (complainant) whereby the Insurance Company asked the respondent No.1 (complainant) to submit claim form, policy copy / cover note, verified copy of registration certificate of vehicle, verified copy of driving license, repair bills, bills payment receipt, route permit, fitness certificate, load challan and copy of First Information Report (FIR). The appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) have specifically pleaded the above documents were not submitted by the respondent No.1 (complainant), the claim could not be finally settled. The appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) specifically pleaded that the vehicle was under hire purchase agreement with Finance // 12 // Company namely Magma Finance and HP/Lease Agreement has not been terminated between the Finance Company and complainant till date. The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 have continuously and repeatedly made request to the complainant to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Finance Company and submit the same but till the complainant has failed to do so and due to inaction on the part of the complainant, the claim has been closed.
15. It appears that the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant) has not yet been rejected or repudiated by the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) and his claim could not be finally settled by the Insurance Company for want of required documents, therefore, the instant complaint is pre-mature. Hence it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 (complainant) to first of all submit his claim along with relevant documents before the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company will decide his claim. If the respondent No.1 (complainant) will not satisfy with the decision of the Insurance Company, the respondent No.1 (complainant) can again file complaint before the District Forum having jurisdiction.
16. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the District Forum, is set aside and the complaint of the respondent No.1 (complainant) is dismissed with a direction that the respondent No.1 // 13 // (complainant) will file claim along with relevant documents before the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) within 2 months from the date of this order and the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2) will decide the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant) within 3 months from the date of receipt of the claim. If the respondent No.1 (complainant) will not satisfy with the decision of the appellants (O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2), then the respondent No.1 (complainant) can again file fresh complaint before the District Forum having jurisdiction. No order as to the cost of this appeal. (Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member 15/09/2016 15 /09/2016 15 /09/2016 15 /09/2016