Mumbai: The national consumer dispute redressal commission has directed the New India Assurance company to pay a compensation of Rs 34,78,002 along with nine percent interest to a Titwala (Kalyan)-based society, right from the date of repudiation of the claim amount, which is from the year 2006.
The commission also directed the insurance company to pay an additional amount of Rs 50,000 towards the complainant’s litigation charges. The commission, while passing its verdict, maintained that just because the insurance firm had failed to appoint a surveyor to verify the damage, it could not escape its responsibility to pay its customers.
Gayatridham Phase II, a co-operative housing society of 10 buildings where 174 families reside, had purchased the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, which the society used to renew every year by paying a premium of Rs 18,910. As per the complaint copy, the society had suffered civil as well as electrical damage due to the torrential rains that had hit the city in 2005. After the conditions subsided, the society decided to repair its wear and tear, and a surveyor was appointed, who estimated a total expense of Rs 40 lakhs for fixing the damage.
In the meantime, society issued a cheque for the yearly premium amount to the insurance firm a few months before seeking the claim. The same was not cleared by the bank due to the disrupted internet services, an aftereffect of the torrential rains, and thus it had asked the company to inform the society to re-issue another cheque. The same was communicated to the insurance firm by the bank.
The insurance company maliciously informed the society that the cheque could not be cleared due to insufficient funds in the society’s bank accounts, and since the premium amount was unpaid, the society is not eligible for the claim, thus holding the policy as ‘void’.” Aggrieved by the same, the society approached the redressal commission.
The commission, after going through the documents produced on record, held the insurance firm guilty of escaping from its responsibilities. It held that the insurance company “cannot be permitted to resile from its liability under this policy at this stage, especially since it has not been able to establish, with any documentary evidence, the reason for declaring the insurance policy void.”
