State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldeep Singh vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 31 October, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022
Date of institution : 15.06.2022
Reserved On : 21.09.2023
Date of decision : 31.10.2023
Kuldeep Singh, aged 62 years, son of Kartar Singh, Resident of 143,
TPT Nagar, Ludhiana.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through its
Authorized Signatory.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sona Complex, near
Fire Brigade, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, through its
Authorized Signatory.
....Respondents/OPs
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Moga, Camp Court at
Ludhiana in RBT/CC No.747 of 2017.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondents : Sh. Sahil Abhi, Advocate.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022 2
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
This order of ours shall dispose off two appeals i.e. First Appeal No.519 of 2022 and First Appeal No.520 of 2022, as the similar questions of law and facts are involved therein and the same have been filed by the appellant/complainant against the similar orders dated 28.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga, Camp Court at Ludhiana (in short, "the District Commission"). However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.519 of 2022.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022
2. Appellant/complainant Kuldeep Singh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the District Commission, Moga, Camp Court at Ludhiana in CC No.747 of 2017, whereby the complaint filed by him had been dismissed.
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. The complaints were initially filed by the complainant before the District Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter the same were transferred to the District Commission, Moga, to be decided at Camp Court at Ludhiana as per order dated 26.11.2021 passed on administrative side by this Commission. First Appeal No.519 of 2022 3
5. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the appellant/complainant in both the complaints filed by him before the District Commission are that he purchased a new LPT-2518/48 TC Ex Truck having Chassis fitted with Cowls and other accessories bearing Registration No.PB-10-EH-5381 from Dada Motors, Ludhiana on 16.01.2014 for an amount of ₹18,41,172/- to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment under the name and style of M/s Delhi-Panipat Carriers Goods. After adding certain more accessories, the price of said vehicle was enhanced more than ₹19 lac. Along with said vehicle, an Insurance Policy bearing No.431800/31/34021/4/00007917 for IDV of ₹19 lac was also issued, which was valid for the period w.e.f. 16.01.2014 to 15.01.2015. Further it was mentioned that the said vehicle was parked in front of the office after duly locking its windows and steering but it was stolen along with the original documents like RC, permit, Insurance etc. during the intervening night of 14/15.04.2014 after breaking the window and steering lock. Regarding said incident of theft, FIR No.56 was registered under Section 379 and 411 IPC at P.S. Division No.6, Ludhiana. Intimation of said theft was also given to the OPs. Thereafter, two persons namely Avtar Singh and Ajay Ganotra were arrested by the police on 25.06.2014 and the truck body was recovered along with ₹20,000/- in cash from them. Thereafter, the challan against the said accused was presented in the Court at Ludhiana. The OPs had also carried out the investigation and First Appeal No.519 of 2022 4 the surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, which was assessed to the tune of ₹19 lac. In the meanwhile, the OPs had transferred an amount of ₹12 lac directly in the Bank account of the complainant on 03.11.2015 but the remaining/balance amount was withheld on the ground of pendency of the police case before the Court. Even no interest was paid on the partial claim amount of ₹12.
6. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice', the complaint was filed with the prayer for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the already paid amount of ₹12 lac w.e.f. 15.04.2014 to 03.11.2014 and also to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- as well as litigation expenses of ₹11,000/-. A further direction was also sought to be issued to pay further interest @ 9% per annum on the calculated interest amount till its realization.
7. Similarly, in First Appeal No.520 of 2022 (pertaining to CC No.753 of 2017), the facts were same and only the prayer was different to the effect that the OPs be directed to pay the balance claim amount of ₹7 lac without applying any Exclusion Clause and also to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- as well as litigation expenses of ₹11,000/-.
8. Upon issuance of notice to the OPs in both the cases, they appeared before the District Commission and filed written reply, First Appeal No.519 of 2022 5 wherein certain preliminary objections were raised. The other averments made in the complaints were specifically denied.
9. By considering the contents of the complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, both the complaints were dismissed by the District Commission vide separate orders dated 28.04.2022 which are under challenge on the grounds that the OPs had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2017, as a compromise was arrived between the complainant and the accused persons without taking the consent of the OPs and also without informing them. The District Commission had also observed that the complainant had already settled the claim of balance amount with the accused outside the Court but without having any consent of the OPs. It was not a case of any 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs.
10. Said orders dated 28.04.2022 passed in both the complaints by the District Commission have been challenged by the appellant/complainant by way of filing two separate appeals by raising a number of arguments.
11. Initially, the counsel namely Mr. Harjas Sandhu had appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant but subsequently, he did not appear on 19.07.2023 and also at the time of final arguments on 21.09.2023.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022 6
12. However, on perusal of grounds of appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, it has been mentioned that the District Commission had failed to appreciate a material fact that there was unexplained delay on the part of the Insurance Company to release the partial claim amount to the complainant. The District Commission had also not appreciated a material fact that the Insurance Company by adopting 'unfair trade practice', had released only a partial amount of ₹12 lac instead of total claim amount of ₹19 lac and that too without any interest. Further it has been mentioned that the appellant had immediately informed the OPs about the incident of theft. The competent authority of the OPs had referred the claim to their higher authorities for approval and it was approved for amount of ₹12 lac subject to completion of necessary formalities, including tender of RC of the vehicle in dispute in the name of the Insurance Company. The appellant was compelled to complete the formalities for the said purpose. The part payment of the claim was made on 03.11.2015 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 1 year and 7 months. The balance claim amount of ₹7 lac was illegally and wrongly withheld on the ground of compromise with the accused. The OPs had illegally and wrongly imposed the condition of the decision of the trial before the criminal Court before releasing the claim amount, which was not even related to the payment of the insurance claim.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022 7
13. Mr. Sahil Abhi, learned counsel for the respondents/OPs has submitted that during the process of the claim, only a portion of the truck body/tyres were traced by the police, for which an amount of ₹80,000/- was recovered and said amount was deposited in the Court. The criminal case was pending and on the request of the complainant, the OPs had recommended by sending the claim to the higher authorities for approval and an amount of ₹12 lac was approved. Said amount was deposited in the account of the complainant on 03.11.2015. Learned counsel has further submitted that thereafter the complainant had approached for getting the balance claim amount and had also submitted the Untraced Report along with the Court order. The OPs had appointed two separate surveyors, who had assessed the loss at ₹5,54,750/-. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had compromised with the accused outside the Court without informing the OPs and without obtaining their consent and even without disclosing about the insurance claim before the trial Court and, as such, there was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs.
14. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents/OPs. We have also carefully perused the grounds of the appeals, impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022 8
15. Facts regarding filing of the complaint by the appellant/complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, dismissal of said complaint and thereafter filing of the present appeal by the appellant/complainant before this Commission are not in dispute.
16. The District Commission while dismissing the complaint has observed that during the processing of the claim, only some portions of the truck body/tyres were traced out by the police and an amount of ₹80,000/- was recovered. Thereafter, the competent authority of the OPs had recommended the claim to the higher authorities for payment of amount and it was approved by them for an amount of ₹12 lac but subject to completion of formalities including the tender of RC of the truck in dispute and said amount was also released to the complainant. Further, it has been observed that after the receipt of report from the respective surveyors and on scrutinizing the documents as placed in the claim file, the complainant was called by the OPs to comment on the factum of compromise but the complainant did not mention anything about the insurance claim in the Court because of the compromise arrived between the parties. It has been further observed that it was appearing to the District Commission as it was a case of collusion between the accused and the complainant. In response to the query raised by the OPs vide letter dated 02.12.2016, the OPs had approved the balance claim of First Appeal No.519 of 2022 9 ₹5,53,000/- and it was sent to the Regional Office for approval. However, on receipt of the decision of the competent authority of the OPs, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 25.10.2017, as the complainant had already reached a compromise without informing the OPs and without their consent. The District Commission by believing the version of the OPs and by giving a finding that since the complainant had already settled the claim of balance amount with the accused out of the Court and that too without the consent of the OPs, it was found to be a case of no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
17. The copy of the Compromise (Ex.R-6) was placed on record by the OPs. However, there was no mention of any insurance claim or interest in the said Compromise. On the basis of said Compromise, the criminal case pending between the complainant and the accused persons was also disposed off vide order dated 11.04.2016 (Ex.R-7) and the accused persons were acquitted and an amount of ₹80,000/- deposited with the Court was also ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. However, the insurance claim was neither the subject matter of the Compromise or the criminal case nor any reference thereof was made in the order passed by the Criminal Court about the insurance claim. Moreover, the Insurance Company was not a party in the said litigation.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022 10
18. After the compromise and the judgment passed by the Criminal Court, the OPs had written a letter dated 02.12.2016 to the complainant stating therein that there was collusion between the complainant and the complainant had not informed the Court about the insurance claim. In response thereto, the complainant had written a letter dated 27.01.2017 to the OPs by stating therein that he had no collusion with the accused and the amount recovered by the police was also intimated by him to the Insurance Company. It was further mentioned that the compromise arrived between the complainant and accused was not relevant qua to the inquiry/tracing of the truck and it was relevant for the punishment under Section 320 IPC. The compromise with the accused had not affected the recovery of insurance claim of the truck in dispute. In the end, the complainant had requested the OPs to settle the claim at the earliest.
19. After receipt of said letter dated 27.01.2018, the OPs had sent the matter to their higher authorities vide letter dated 30.01.2017 with the request to approve the balance claim of ₹5,53,500/-. Thereafter, vide letter dated 25.10.2017, the claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground that the Competent Authority had decided not to pay any additional amount as the complainant had compromised the matter with the accused without informing the Company and without their consent.
First Appeal No.519 of 2022 11
20. All these facts and circumstances as well as the documents were not discussed/considered by the District Commission while passing the impugned orders. Even the issue of interest on account of delay in paying the part of the claim of ₹12 lac has not been discussed. The terms and conditions of the policy were not also discussed. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand both the cases to the District Commission for fresh decision.
21. Accordingly, both the appeals i.e. First Appeal No.519 of 2022 and First Appeal No.520 of 2022 are allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.04.2022 passed by the District Commission are set aside. Both the cases are remanded to the District Commission with the direction to decide the same afresh by considering the contents of the complaints, reply filed by the OPs and the evidence available on the record after affording adequate opportunity of raising the arguments to both the parties.
22. The District Commission shall make all efforts to decide the complaint without any further delay preferably within a period not more than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
23. As already mentioned above, the complaint was initially filed before the District Commission, Ludhiana and the same was transferred to District Commission, Moga (to be decided by the Camp Court at Ludhiana) as per administrative order dated 26.11.2021 First Appeal No.519 of 2022 12 passed by this Commission. It has also been mentioned in the order dated 26.11.2021 that after the disposal of the case, the file shall be sent back to the original District Commission, to which the case belongs. Since the case is being remanded to the District Commission, so the parties through counsel are directed to appear before the original District Commission, Ludhiana on 30.11.2023.
24. The record of both the cases be returned to the District Commission, Ludhiana forthwith.
25. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
26. The appeals could not be decided and pronounced within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER October 31, 2023.
(Gurmeet S)