Haryana

Sonipat

184/2014

PARDEEP SINGH S/O DILBAG SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,2. MANJEET KUMAR,3. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. DAHIYA

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.184 of 2014

                             Instituted on:28.07.2014

                             Date of order:19.10.2015

 

Pardeep Singh son of Dilbag Singh, resident of village and post office Sisana, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

1.Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. 301, 3^rd Floor Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Road, No.44, Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 through its General Manager.

2.Manjeet Kumar(Agent) Om Finance, HDFC Bank Ltd. Sonepat.

3.TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. near Appolo Tyre Agency, Delhi road, Sonepat (through its Branch Manager).

(RESPONDENTS No.2 AND 3 GIVEN UP BY LEARNED COMPLAINANT’S COUNSEL VIDE HIS SEPARATE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 27.05.2015)

                                                …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. NK Dahiya, Advocate for Complainant.

 

 Sh. H.C. Jain, Advocate for respondent no.1.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint as per complainant are that the complainant got his truck no.HR-69A-8228 insured with the respondent vide policy valid w.e.f. 29.12.2012 to 28.12.2013 and unfortunately, the said truck was stolen on 2.11.2013 from the area of village Sisana, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.  After the theft, the complainant immediately informed the police at 100 number and VT in this regard was further given. Similarly, the complainant gave information of theft to the respondent and lodged his claim.  The police after due enquiry lodged FIR no.376 dated 13.11.2013 u/s 379 IPC PS Kharkhoda and final untraced report dated 11.1.2014 was recorded in this regard.   The complainant completed all the required formalities and submitted all the documents to the respondent insurance company.  M/s Vikas Kumar & Associate was appointed as surveyor. The said surveyor had asked the complainant to sign certain documents and statements without reading over its contents and refused to take over the keys of the vehicle held by the complainant.  Surprisingly after 3 months, the complainant received letter dated 9.4.2014 from the respondent wherein he was informed that as per the report of surveyor, the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy  and the vehicle was not locked at the time of parking.    The complainant again received the letter dated 7.5.2014 vide which the claim was repudiated on the point that he did not lock the vehicle while it was parked and keys of the vehicle were left in dias board. The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal and this act of the respondent insurance company has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, only the respondent no.1 has contested the case by filing their reply etc. because the respondents no.2 & 3 were given-up by the learned counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement on 27.05.2015.

          In reply, the respondent no.1 has submitted that there has been violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant.  The alleged theft of truck in question has been mentioned to have taken place on 2.11.2013 whereas the claim was reported to the insurance company on 13.11.2013 i.e. after a gap of 11 days.  Further the complainant did not take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and the vehicle was left unattended without proper precaution.  The same is evident from the FIR and as admitted by the complainant himself in the statement given to M/s Vikas Kumar & Ass. Leaving the start switch key in the dash board of the truck (cabin of the truck) and did not have any provision for locking it from outside, which clearly shows that the complainant has failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 7.5.2014.  The statement of the complainant was written by his cousin sister namely Preeti on the dictation of the complainant and it also bears the signatures of the complainant.  The respondent no.1 has denied the fact that the surveyor has refused to take keys from the insured.  The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that there has been violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant.  The alleged theft of truck in question has been mentioned to have taken place on 2.11.2013 whereas the claim was reported to the insurance company on 13.11.2013 i.e. after a gap of 11 days.  Further the complainant did not take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and the vehicle was left unattended without proper precaution.  The same is evident from the FIR and as admitted by the complainant himself in the statement given to M/s Vikas Kumar & Ass. Leaving the start switch key in the dash board of the truck (cabin of the truck) and did not have any provision for locking it from outside, which clearly shows that the complainant has failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 7.5.2014.  The statement of the complainant was written by his cousin sister namely Preeti on the dictation of the complainant and it also bears the signatures of the complainant.  The respondent no.1 has denied the fact that the surveyor has refused to take keys from the insured.  The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant got his truck no.HR-69A-8228 insured with the respondent vide policy valid w.e.f. 29.12.2012 to 28.12.2013 and unfortunately, the said truck was stolen on 2.11.2013 from the area of village Sisana, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.  After the theft, the complainant immediately informed the police at 100 number and VT in this regard was further given. Similarly, the complainant gave information of theft to the respondent and lodged his claim.  The police after due enquiry lodged FIR no.376 dated 13.11.2013 u/s 379 IPC PS Kharkhoda and final untraced report dated 11.1.2014 was recorded in this regard.   The complainant completed all the required formalities and submitted all the documents to the respondent insurance company.  M/s Vikas Kumar & Associate was appointed as surveyor. The said surveyor had asked the complainant to sign certain documents and statements without reading over its contents and refused to take over the keys of the vehicle held by the complainant.  Surprisingly after 3 months, the complainant received letter dated 9.4.2014 from the respondent wherein he was informed that as per the report of surveyor, the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy  and the vehicle was not locked at the time of parking.    The complainant again received the letter dated 7.5.2014 vide which the claim was repudiated on the point that he did not lock the vehicle while it was parked and keys of the vehicle were left in dias board.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the repudiation of the complainant’s claim is wrong, illegal and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company.

5.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we find force in the present complaint.  In the present complaint, the theft of the vehicle has taken place on 2.11.2013 from the area of village Sisana, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat and after the theft, the complainant immediately informed the police at 100 number and VT in this regard was further given.  The document Ex.C2 fully supports the case of the complainant.  In this document, it is mentioned that on 2.11.2013 at about 8.15 am telephonic message on 100 number was received from one Pardeep son of Dilbagh from mobile no.9813485396.  In our view, the complainant’s duty was only to inform the police and lodging of FIR was not in his hand.  The police has lodged the FIR on 13.11.2013 when they failed to trace the vehicle in question.

          In the present case, the surveyor has not recorded the statement of driver.  The recording of statement of driver was necessary by the surveyor as the driver was the best person to tell the reasoning about the theft of the vehicle.

          We have also perused the document Annexure R3 and this document bears the signature of Preeti and Pardeep.  But this statement is not helpful to the respondent insurance company as the above statement should have been written by the surveyor or the investigator.

          In the present case, the theft of the vehicle has taken place during the validity of the insurance policy and the same was not traced out and the policy filed the final untraced report dated 11.1.2014 in the concerned court.  As per cover note Ex.C1, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.fifteen lacs) and the respondent no.1 insurance company is legally liable to indemnify the loss suffered by  the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 insurance company to make the payment of Rs.15 Lacs to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum after excluding 60 days from the date of theft till its realization

and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousands for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The complainant is directed to submit Form 29 & 30, letter of subrogation and letter of indemnity with the respondent no.1.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy  of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)                    Member, DCDRF,             Member, DCDRF        President, DCDRF,

Sonepat.             Sonepat.             Sonepat.

 

ANNOUNCED 19.10.2015