MOHIT PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to formulate regulations to ensure that the Insurance Companies are not able to adopt unfair practices while refusing to honour the Insurance policies and quashing of the order dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure P -25), by which the Insurance Ombudsman has not entertained the complaint made by the petitioner on the ground that it was outside its jurisdiction. The petitioner placed an order for two cars make Pajero BSIII DSL SFX Graphite to Hindustan Motors Ltd -respondent No. 7 in May 2009 against full payment. After receiving the full payment of Rs. 34,00,584/ -, the manufacturer was to dispatch the said vehicles. The aforesaid two Pajero cars were dispatched by respondent No. 7 vide two separate invoices bearing No. 20900124 and 20900128 dated 12.05.2009 (Annexure P -1). These cars were insured under the Marine Insurance (New Policy) with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. -respondent No. 3 vide policy bearing No. 414600/21/2010/13 (Annexure P -2). The transit invoice bearing consignment No. 130 dated 12.05.2009 is annexed as Annexure P -3. Thereafter, on 22.05.2009, the petitioner was informed through email (Annexure P -4) that these two Pajero cars met with an accident at Rohtak and respondent Nos. 4 and 7 were requested to depute a Surveyor for evaluating the loss suffered by the cars. Vide communication dated 25.05.2009 (Annexure P -6), the petitioner was informed that the truck, which was carrying the aforesaid Pajero cars was being repaired and thereafter, it would reach Chandigarh and assessment of the damage caused to the Pajero cars would be worked out by the Surveyor. After unloading of the damaged vehicles, an acknowledgment receipt dated 28.05.2009 was prepared by the petitioner and forwarded to respondent Nos. 4 and 7. The cars were received in the presence of the Surveyor, appointed by respondent No. 4, as is evidence from acknowledgement receipt dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure P -8).

(2.) THE petitioner submitted a claim form and estimate for repair of the damaged cars to respondent No. 4 on 20.06.2009 (Annexure P -9). The claim was not released on one pretext or the other and the Surveyor, appointed by respondent No. 4, was pressurizing the petitioner to release Form Nos. 21 and 22 of the damaged vehicles, so that the same could be sold in the market. The petitioner gave a cheque bearing No. 454127 dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P -13) for an amount of Rs. 42,338/ - as fees/charges of the Surveyor, appointed by respondent No. 4.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the act and conduct of respondents in not processing the insurance claim of the petitioner, he approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure P -15) on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thereafter, his appeal before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was also dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P -16). Subsequently, vide communication dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P -19), the Insurance Company conveyed the petitioner that they had sent discharge voucher of Rs. 5,63,813/ - towards fill and final settlement of the above said claims. The petitioner, thereafter, filed CWP No. 6599 of 2011 before this Court, which was withdrawn on 19.04.2011 (Annexure P -23) with liberty to approach the Insurance Ombudsman. However, the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, vide order dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure P -25) refused to entertain his application on the ground that the complaint falls outside its jurisdiction, as the policy has been issued in the name of a firm and not an individual.