Mumbai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) for the Mumbai suburban district has directed an insurance company to pay ₹300 from August 2018 for not complying with an order of the insurance ombudsman dated July 31, 2018, to honor a car owner’s claim. The insurance company was directed to pay the amount until it gets the car fixed or the repair expenses are covered.
The complainant, Derek Enterprises, had approached the forum against the insurance company as it rejected their claim, and later when ordered to pay for the repair of the vehicle by the insurance ombudsman, it failed to do that.
Derek Enterprises claimed that their car suddenly caught fire on April 27, 2017, at Ghodbunder Road, Thane. The complainant hence approached the respondent – the insurance company for repair of the vehicle or for reimbursement of the expenses. The insurance company rejected the claim saying that the policy was under ‘no claim bonus’, while the complainant had availed the claim from the previous insurance company.
The complainant claimed that he had ported to the respondent’s insurance company through their agents and had mentioned the prior claims from the previous company. However, the agents gave him a policy under no claim bonus while porting.
Hence, the complainant first approached the ombudsman, which directed the insurance company to get the vehicle repaired and also asked it to recover the balance premium amount due from the complainant which they ought to have charged under the normal policy without the no claim bonus clause.
The complainant argued that even after the ombudsman’s order, the respondent insurance company did not do anything.
Hence, the complainant pleaded that the insurance company should either get the car repaired or pay the expenses which were estimated to be ₹4.95 lakh. The complainant also asked for payment of the remaining loan amount of ₹7.83 lakh and ₹8,050 towards parking charges and ₹2,100 for towing charges.
The insurance company, however, opposed the complaint calling it frivolous. It claimed that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes hence the complainant is not a consumer under the law. Also, the insurance company claimed that after the order of the ombudsman when they showed wiliness to repair the vehicle, the complainant did not give a proper response.
After hearing both sides, DCDRF, on July 31, 2018, held that the insurance company failed to show any communication or proof that they communicated with the complainant for complying with the order of the ombudsman hence, the insurance company is guilty of unfair trade practices.
