- (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. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that there are disputed questions of facts arising in the claim. The insurance policy was availed by Hindustan Motors Ltd., Tamil Nadu -respondent No. 7. The petitioner was beneficiary under the Marine Contract of Insurance. After insurance of both the vehicles by respondent No. 7, those were transported from Tamil Nadu and on route, the truck in which both the cars were being carried, met with an accident. As per report of the Surveyor, the vehicles could not be sold as new after repair. The petitioner was given two options for settlement. He could retain the wrecks of the cars or sell the wrecks, as is where in condition to any identified salvage buyer or putting it to permissible use. The petitioner was directed to give Form Nos. 21 and 22 for compliance of the procedural formalities, but the petitioner has declined to do so, therefore, his claim could not be disposed of. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further stated that the settlement of the claim has been delayed due to non -cooperative attitude of the petitioner. The invoice value of one Pajero car was Rs. 17,00,292/ -. The salvage value of two Pajero cars was fixed at Rs. 23,20,000/ - (without VAT) in accordance with the highest quote/offer received from the salvage buyer. The claim eventually worked out to Rs. 5,63,813/ - as admissible. Since the petitioner was not agreeing to give Form Nos. 21 and 22, therefore, his claim from the Insurance Company, after deleting the salvage value of each car as Rs. 11,16,000/ -, comes to Rs. 5,63,813/ -.;