Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs Ritika Virdi and Others
Summary
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Reliance General Insurance Company accountable for service deficiencies. The Insurance Company failed to fulfill the legitimate claims of Indian travelers who received four suitcases from their luggage in Bhutan after a delay exceeding twelve hours. The Complainants, who had purchased an insurance policy from Reliance General Insurance Company, claimed that their possessions were received in Bangkok two days later than anticipated, resulting in acute distress and inconvenience. The District Commission ruled in favor of the Complainants, instructing the Insurance Company to provide $500 each and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The State Commission argued that the District Commission’s decision was partially erroneous, as the evidence indicated only “four” packages were delayed. The State Commission amended the order to require the Complainants to pay $500 each for the delay in delivery of only four sacks, along with 9% interest from the date of the complaint.
About the case
Mrs. Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench, held Reliance General Insurance Company accountable for service deficiencies. The Insurance Company neglected to fulfill the legitimate claims of Indian travelers who received four suitcases from their luggage in Bhutan after a delay exceeding twelve hours.
During their visit to Bangkok, the Complainants acquired an insurance policy from Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Insurance Company”). Each Complainant would be entitled to $500 if the luggage was delayed by more than 12 hours, as the insurance policy covered late delivery or loss of luggage. The Complainants claimed that their possessions, which were scheduled for delivery from Delhi, were received in Bangkok two days later than anticipated. This resulted in acute distress and inconvenience for them. The insurance claim for the delay remained unpaid, despite the fact that one of the Complainants visited the Insurance Company’s office and sent emails. The Complainants lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission -I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”), as they felt aggrieved.
The Insurance Company responded by asserting that only Dharta Devi, one of the complainants, had submitted a claim to them, and that no other claims had been submitted. They contended that Dharta Devi was the owner of all baggage tags and reports, and she neglected to submit the requisite documentation, including invoices and receipts for emergency purchases. The Insurance Company also underscored that they were only responsible for emergency purchases of toiletries, medication, and apparel, as stipulated in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It argued that the Complainants’ failure to submit critical documents rendered the complaint premature.
The District Commission ruled in favor of the Complainants after perusing the pleadings and evidence. The Insurance Company was instructed to provide $500 to each Complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The Insurance Company lodged an appeal with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”) in response to this decision, having been aggrieved by it.
The District Commission’s decision was partially erroneous, according to the State Commission. It was observed that the District Commission did not completely comprehend the documentary evidence, which resulted in inaccurate conclusions. The Insurance Company had sold the Complainants an insurance policy that included a $500 compensation for delays exceeding 12 hours and covered late delivery or cargo loss. A premium of ₹599.91 was paid by each respondent in order to be covered under this policy.
The records indicate that only ‘four’ bags of luggage, which contained the belongings of all six respondents, were delivered in Bangkok with a delay surpassing 12 hours. The Insurance Company’s service deficiency was accurately identified by the District Commission. Nevertheless, it was incorrect to instruct each of the “six” Complainants to receive $500, as the evidence indicated that only “four” packages were delayed. Consequently, the State Commission amended the order to require the Complainants to pay $500 each for the delay in delivery of only four sacks, in addition to 9% interest from the date of the complaint.
The Insurance Company was also ordered by the State Commission to pay the complainants a composite amount of ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses.
