BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.338 of 2016
Date of Instt. 02.08.2016
Date of Decision: 08.11.2017
Raj Kumar son of Kartar Chand resident of House No.906, Patti Thaksar Village Shankar Nakodar District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Branch Manager Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Unit No.S.F.2, 261, LajpatKunj 2nd Floor Eminent Mall Guru Nanak Mission Chowk Jalandhar.
….… Opposite party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Rahul Pushkarna, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. AK Gandhi, Adv Counsel for the OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein stated that he got insured his vehicle make Hyundai Ascent Car bearing No.PB-08-CV-5048 with the OP, vide policy No.11741812. The car of the complainant was stolen by Jagpal Singh S/o Joga Singh R/o Patti Takhar, Village Shankar, PS Nakodar, Jalandhar. The intimation in regard to theft was given to the police on the same day i.e. 06.08.2015 and accordingly a case FIR No.127 dated 11.08.2015 u/s 380, 379, 342, 201 IPC was registered at Police Station, Division No.7, Jalandhar, on the statement of Shiv Kumar son-in-law of the complainant. The complainant also intimated about the theft to the OP on same day i.e. 06.08.2015 and after registration of the FIR, copy of FIR was also provided to the OP for processing the claim of the complainant as the complainant has suffered lot due to deficiency of the OP in providing good services to its customers. After paying numerous visits to the OP with respect to status of claim of the complainant, the complainant was astonished to know that claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP without assigning any fruitful reason. The claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP on the ground that the complainant has intimated the OP late, moreover, it is submitted that the complainant intimated the OP in time and FIR was also got registered by the complainant within time as such, ground taken by the OP in rejecting claim of the complainant is totally erroneous, just to grab the hard earned premium paid by the complainant, since the inception of policy. The complainant has also got served a legal notice to the OP however, they failed to process the claim of the complainant, which is clearly negligence of the officials of the OP and unfair trade practice, whereby the complainant has suffered huge loss and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,17,830/- as insured amount of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also pay the damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental tension and agony and also pay litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly, OP filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable because the claim of the complainant has rightly repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 07.06.2016. As per the record, the vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 05/06.08.2015 and the FIR in regard to theft of the vehicle was lodged on 11.08.2015 i.e. after delay of 5 days and further, intimation in regard to theft was given to the answering OP on 13.08.2015 i.e. after delay of 7 days, which clearly shows the gross negligence on the part of the complainant in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover, as per the statement of the complainant, the car in dispute was used by the son-in-law of the complainant namely Shiv Kumar, Mr. Jagpal Singh, who stolen the car of the complainant was having frequent visit in the house of Shiv Kumar and said Jagpal Singh was a family friend of the Shiv Kumar and he stayed at the home of the Shiv Kumar for 6 days and he pick up the key of the car easily and known to the security guard of the Shiv Kumar. So, the present case is a gross negligence on the part of the complainant and his relative. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that no cause of action arose against the answering OP to file the present complaint. As per condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, no written intimation was given to the answering OP by the complainant, immediately upon the occurrence, which deprived the legitimate right of the OP to timely make enquiry into the incident and to put efforts to recover the same. So, there is clear violation of the condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased an insurance policy and it is also admitted that the claim of the car was filed by the complainant, which was repudiated on 06.08.2015, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OPA and Ex.OPB alongwith some documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/5 and then closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very minutely with the able assistance of both the counsel for the parties.
6. From the facts of the present complaint, it has become clear that the complainant is owner of the vehicle i.e. Hyundai Ascent SX Car, having registration No.PB-08-CV-5048 and ownership of the vehicle is also established from the registration certificate and its photostat copy is Ex.C2. It is not disputed case that the complainant got insured the said vehicle with the OP for an insured declared value of Rs.7,17,830/- and period of the insurance policy is 10.10.2014 to 09.10.2015 and alleged theft of the car was taken place on the intervening night of 05/.06.08.2015. So, it means that the said theft was taken place during the persistence of insurance policy and after theft, the complainant reported the matter to the local police on 06.08.2015, though the police has registered the case on 11.08.2015 and further as per the version of the complainant, intimation in regard to theft was given to the OP on 06.08.2015, but the OP alleged that the intimation was given on 13.08.2015 and copy of the motor claim notification Ex.OP/2 placed on the file but this document is not signed by the complainant rather the OP has intentionally not produced on the file the complete document Ex.OP/2. So, it means that the date of intimation as shown in the aforesaid document is not acceptable rather it is proved that the information was given to the OP on 06.08.2015 as alleged by the complainant and moreover, the claim of the complainant has been rejected due to delay intimation and for that purpose, the OP has referred para No.1 of the term and condition, copy of the term and condition placed on the file by the OP is Ex.OP/4, wherein the para No.1 of the term and condition is not appropriately referred by the OP rather the first part is related to accidental loss or damages in any claim and in the second part, in case of theft or criminal act, the information in regard to that is to be given to the police by the insured immediately. So, the case of the complainant is covered in the second part and accordingly, the complainant has given information to the police and accordingly, case was registered. So, from this angle, the claim of the complainant has illegally rejected by the OP on this ground.
7. So for the concern of other ground that there is a negligence on the part of the complainant to make the key of the vehicle accessible to Jagpal Singh, who is none else rather a friend of the Shiv Kumar from whose house, the vehicle was stolen but this version of the OP is not established because the vehicle was stolen by Jagpal Singh in the night time and he might had located the key from the house of Shiv Kumar and as such, the negligence of the complainant or his son-in-law Shiv Kumar is not proved rather one thing is established that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen, regarding that case FIR was lodged and an Investigating Officer was appointed by the OP, who submitted his report Ex.OP/1, contains 1 to 30 pages, if there was any delay, then what was the necessity to appoint the investigator to investigate the matter rather the claim of the complainant can be rejected at that very stage and further the investigator in his report Ex.OP/1 has established that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen and also established that a case was registered. So, under these circumstances, we reach to the conclusion that the insurance claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 07.06.2016 Ex.C5, whereas the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim.
8. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to make payment of the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,17,830/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of rejection of claim i.e. 07.06.2016, till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
08.11.2017 Member President
