An insurance company has won an appeal with the UT States Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against an earlier order, by a district court, penalising them for rejecting an insurance claim for damaged apples.
This appeal in March 2012, rendered by the UT District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, directed the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in Delhi and its Chandigarh branch to jointly pay Rs 12,00,000 to the complainant, for the loss suffered by him for an insured consignment of fruits. They were, additionally, directed to pay Rs 10,000 compensation for mental harassment and Rs 5,000 litigation cost.
Narinder Pal Singh, a resident of Sector 26, had availed a Marine Policy from the insurance company in September 2009, for an apple consignment going to Bangalore and the value of the fruits was declared by him as Rs 43,00,000. The truck carrying the apples, while in transit, got overturned and fell into a pond in District Jhajjar in Haryana. A surveyor, was appointed to visit the spot, and submit his report. The complainant stated that he neither received surveyorâ€™s report, nor received any intimation regarding his claim.
In its appeal, the insurance company claimed that the true value of the consignment was Rs 12,30,000. It stated that the investigation, after the incident, carried out by Royal Associates, clearly showed that empty truck was intentionally overturned to show the loss, and there was no evidence to reveal that the goods were damaged, on account of overturning of the truck. It was further stated that during the course of investigation, by the surveyor, it was found that in the pond in which the truck was shown to have overturned, only a few empty cartons of apples were found floating on the water. The company alleged that the cartons of apples were illegally sold by the driver and conductor of the truck, may be with the connivance of the owner.
The company, in its appeal, stated that a scene of the occurrence was created by the driver, and later on, the truck was overturned intentionally. It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was processed, and, â€œafter thorough investigation carried out by the surveyor, it was found that the claim was created with malafide intention, with a view to obtain indemnification, on false grounds.â€
The company argued that the claim of the complainant was a manipulated one, in the first place and, hence, was rejected by them. They claimed that there was no deficiency of service on their part.
The commission adjudged that the order of the district forum, to penalise the company, was not based on correct appreciation of evidence and was set aside.
Insurance firm told to pay out for stolen car
In another case of refund and compensation against Reliance General Insurance Company Limited in Chandigarh, an earlier order by the UT District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was upheld by the commission.
Baljit Singh, a Mohali resident, got his Maruti car, insured from the company from July 2009 to June 2010 and paid a premium of Rs 3,547. In November 2009, the vehicle was stolen, after which Singh alleged that he sent them repeated requests through telephone calls and letters. When the company finally responded, they rejected his claim on the ground that there was a delay of 80 days in intimating them about the theft.
The penalty, as stated in the earlier order, stands and the company has to pay insurance worth Rs 1,00,000, a sum of Rs 30,000 as compensation and Rs 7,000 as litigation costs.