SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member and Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
AJIT SINGH SYAN - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1346 of 2011
Decided on : 27-09-2012

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Jaimini Tiwari proxy for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate, for the Respondent

The non-issuance of the policy after receiving the premium was deemed as deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, making them liable to pay the repair charges and compensation to the respondent.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Insurance - 1986, Section 12 - [1986, Section 12] - The court found that the respondent proved the insurance of his vehicle and the accident, and the appellants failed to pay the assessed amount for the damage caused to the vehicle. The non-issuance of the policy after receiving the premium was deemed as deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The court affirmed the order of the District Forum, directing the appellants to pay the repair charges and compensation to the respondent.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the appellants, asserting that his car was insured by the appellants and was damaged in an accident. The appellants refused to pay for the repair/spares of the car, leading to the complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent proved the insurance of his vehicle and the accident, and the appellants failed to pay the assessed amount for the damage caused to the vehicle. The non-issuance of the policy after receiving the premium was deemed as deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The court affirmed the order of the District Forum, directing the appellants to pay the repair charges and compensation to the respondent.

Issues: The issues revolved around the insurance coverage, payment of repair charges, and compensation for the damaged vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-issuance of the policy after receiving the premium was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, and they were liable to pay the repair charges and compensation to the respondent.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed, and the court affirmed the order of the District Forum, directing the appellants to pay the repair charges and compensation to the respondent.

ORDER

Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member - Reliance Genera! Insurance Company Limited and others, appellants (in short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short "the District Forum").

2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Ajit Singh, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, asserting that he is owner of car bearing registration No. PB-32-B-0123, Make Fiat Palio, Model 2008, Engine No. 2739004, Chassis No. 8070557 GRZ and he got insured the same from the appellants through its agent Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Harbilas, resident of Nai Abadi, Nawanshahr, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, bearing Code No. 562531 at Nawanshahr on 3.11.2009. The said agent represented the appellants and after completing the formalities, received a sum of Rs. 10,641 as premium and issued the cover note for and on behalf of the appellants, bearing No. 109000850540 effective from 3.11.2009 to 2.11.2010. The car was comprehensively insured by the appellants. The amount of premium paid by the respondent stood duly credited in the account of Sales Manager of the appellants, bearing No. 008201525817 with ICICI Bank, Nawanshahr.

3. The car in question met with an accident on 15.5.2010 and was damaged. Due intimation was given to the appellants by the workshop Incharge of Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, West, Jalandhar Bypass, Ludhiana and claim was lodged and claim No. 2101122203 was registered by the appellants and the said number was communicated to the workshop incharge and surveyor of the appellants inspected the vehicle and obtained copies of the insurance certificate, registration certificate as well as driving licence of Gursharanjit Singh Syan son of the respondent, who was driving the vehicle when it met with accident. The appellants intimated to repair the car. Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, West, Ludhiana submitted the estimate of value of spares and repairs of the car to the tune of Rs. 2,34,820 and the car was repaired and was brought to roadworthy condition. The investigator of the appellant also verified the genuineness of the driving licence from the District Transport Authority, Nawanshahr.

4. The respondent was intimated to pay an amount of Rs. 88,000 alleging the same to be the amount of rubber parts, etc. not covered under the insurance policy. The respondent paid the said amount to Data Motors Pvt. Ltd. to avoid the delay but the appellants refused to make the payment of repair/spares of the car to the workshop of Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. where the car was repaired. The respondent had to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,46,820 to Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. for the repair of the car, vide bank draft dated 3.11.2010, receipt No. 4074. The appellants were legally required to make payment of Rs. 2,34,820 and had no reason to refuse to pay the claim and rejection of the claim amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. The respondent suffered mental tension and harassment and is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000.

5. It was prayed that the appellants be directed to pay Rs. 2,34,820 towards repair charges and Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses.

6. In the written reply filed on behalf of appellant No. 1, preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable against appellant No. 1 and is barred by the act and conduct of the respondent. The respondent has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint.

7. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent is owner of the car in question and the same was insured through Mr. Sunil Kumar, appellant No. 1, who is authorized agent of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and he is working at Nawanshahr and the agent code of Sh. Sunil K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top