A consumer disputes redressal commission directed Chola MS Insurance Company to pay ₹12,01,881.56 as charges for repairs, and ₹2 lakh as compensation, for failing to quickly settle the insurance claim and for resorting to “delay tactics.”
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, was dealing with a complaint filed by Classic Egg Traders. The opposite parties (OP) were the manager and managing director of Chola MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Apex Automobile Engineers, surveyor R Vittal, and insurance manager Mastan.
The complainant stated that a goods carrier vehicle was insured with the company, and that the vehicle was used to transport eggs from poultry farms, and was a means of earning a livelihood. It was on February 10, 2023 that the vehicle met with an accident and was severely damaged. The accident was reported to the insurance company and a claim was registered. 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, and the complainant was assured of a full settlement of ₹14,66,111 within 30 days. When the claim was not processed, the complainant sent a legal notice in June 2023. Despite this, the claim was not processed.
The insurance company rejected all allegations, and objected to the maintainability of the complaint, contending that he did not submit a copy of the First Information Report. Documents such as registration certificate, driving licence, route permit, fitness, claim discharge voucher, and chassis number photos, among others were asked. The complainant did not provide documentary evidence except service estimate.
Taking into consideration the evidence and arguments placed on record, the commission observed that the delay in processing the claim was unfair trade practice and constituted deficiency in service. The commission relied on an order of the Nation Consumer Disputes Resdressal Commission and an order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to affirm that the complainant comes under the definition of a consumer. The complainant brought to the attention of the commission that the OP closed and opened the case lead to a deliberate delay which also constitutes unfair trade practices. The insurance company violated insurance policy terms.
Costs of ₹10,000 were also imposed.
