The Consumer Redressal Commission, however, directed the company to pay ₹12, 01,881.56 as repair costs and ₹2 lakh compensation for not settling the insurance claim quickly and using “delay tactics.”
Complaint of Classic Egg Traders was being heard by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad. Opposite Parties (OP) were manager and managing director of Chola MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Apex Automobile Engineers surveyor R Vittal and insurance manager Mastan.
According to the complainant a goods carrier vehicle had been insured with the company and painted on it were eggs from poultry farms which was a means of earning a livelihood when it comes to this vehicle. This vehicle met with an accident on February 10th where it suffered severe damages. This case was reported to the insurance firm whereby a claim had been made. All surveyor requests were complied with including moving it to Apex Automobile Engineers at a cost of ₹25,000. The cost of repairs was estimated at ₹12,01,881; hence within 30 days the complainant was promised full payment amounting to₹14,66,111. In June 2023 he sent legal notice when his claim wasn’t processed even though through this way he didn’t manage.
The accusation against maintainability of complaint by insurance company rejects all allegations that applicant has failed to submit attested copy of First Information Report (FIR). Documents such as registration certificate driving licence route permit fitness claim discharge voucher among others asked for photos of chassis number etc.. Instead service estimate alone has been given without any documentary evidence by complainant.
The court observed that delay in processing the claim is an unfair trade practice and thus deficiency in service in view of evidence placed before it during trial. In this respect I base my decision on an order by Nation Consumer Disputes Resdressal Commission and another one from Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission too, because the complainant is a consumer as defined by law. In his submission to the commission, the complainant stated that closure and reopening of this case by OP amounted to unfair trade practices that also amount to an intentional delay. On its part, insurance company violated insurance policy terms.
Further there were costs of ₹10,000 imposed.
