Mumbai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) in the suburban district of Mumbai ordered an insurance company to pay ₹300 of August 2018 for failure to comply with an order of the Insurance Ombudsman of July 31, 2018, to honor a car owner’s claim. The insurance company was ordered to pay the amount until they repaired the car or the repair costs were covered.
The plaintiff, Derek Enterprises, had gone to the forum against the insurance company because he had rejected their claim, and later, when he was ordered to pay for the repair of the vehicle by the insurance ombudsman, he did not didn’t.
Derek Enterprises claimed their car suddenly caught fire on April 27, 2017 in Ghodbunder Road, Thane. The complainant therefore turned to the respondent – the insurance company for the repair of the vehicle or for the reimbursement of expenses. The insurance company denied the claim saying the policy was under “premium for no claim”, while the plaintiff had asserted the claim of the previous insurance company.
The Complainant claimed that he transferred to the Respondent’s insurance company through their agents and referred to previous claims from the previous company. However, the agents gave him a policy under no claim bonus during the carry.
Therefore, the complainant first approached the mediator, who ordered the insurance company to have the vehicle repaired and also asked them to recover the amount of the balance premium due to the complainant that they would have had to charge under the normal policy without the no-claims bonus clause.
The Complainant argued that even after the Ombudsman’s order, the Respondent Insurance Company did nothing.
Therefore, the plaintiff argued that the insurance company should either have the car repaired or pay the estimated expenses of ₹4.95 lakh. The plaintiff also requested payment of the remaining amount of the loan from ₹7.83 lakh and ₹8,050 for parking fees and ₹2,100 for towing costs.
The insurance company, however, objected to the complaint, calling it frivolous. He claimed that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, so the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the law. In addition, the insurance company claimed that after the ombudsman’s order when they showed their willingness to repair the vehicle, the complainant did not give an appropriate response.
After hearing from both parties, the DCDRF on July 31, 2018 ruled that the insurance company had presented no communication or evidence that it had communicated with the plaintiff to comply with the mediator’s order, per therefore, the insurance company is guilty of unfair business practices. .