Haryana

Kaithal

431/20

Rampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam Ms Gen Insu. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Nitin Chhabra

22 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           431 of 2020.

                                                               Date of institution:    16.12.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:       22.02.2024.

 

Rampal s/o Shri Puran Chand, r/o H.No.1059/14, Gandhi Nagar, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh Branch, S.C.O. 2463-2464, 2^nd Floor, Sector-22C, Chandigarh, New Sect. Chandigarh S.O. City Chandigarh State, Chandigarh.

...Opposite Party.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:    SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Nitin Chhabra, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri M.R. Miglani, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

                  

ORDER     -     NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                       The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he purchased a motor vehicle policy No.3379/01271315/000/04 of vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No.HR-37C-7136 from OP commencing from 29.10.2019 to 28.10.2020. That the said vehicle was stolen on 09.12.2019 at 04:18 AM when it was standing near his shop and he reported the matter to the police of Police Station  Civil Line Kaithal, upon which, FIR No.555 dated 09.12.2019 u/s 379 of IPC was registered without any delay. That he also informed the OP in this regard after submitting the documents i.e. copy of FIR, insurance policy, his ID proof, affidavit etc., who wrongly repudiated his claim on 09.01.2020 & 17.01.2020. That police investigated the matter but failed to trace the vehicle and submitted challan u/s 173 of Cr.PC. That he sent legal notice to the OP through his counsel on 08.10.2020 in this regard, but all in vain. The above act of OP of not releasing his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP, due to which, he suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OP, before this Commission.    

3.             Upon notice, OP appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement denying that the OP was informed immediately. It is further submitted that it is wrong that all the documents were submitted with OP despite written request and ultimately, claim of complainant closed as “No Claim”. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with costs.

4.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11, Annexure CZ and Mark-A.

5.                On the other hand, in its evidence, the OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure-R1.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased a motor vehicle policy of his vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No.HR-37C-7136 from OP commencing from 29.10.2019 to 28.10.2020. He further argued that the said vehicle was stolen on 09.12.2019 at 04:18 AM when it was standing near the shop and the complainant reported the matter to the police of Police Station Civil Line Kaithal, upon which, FIR No.555 dated 09.12.2019 u/s 379 of IPC was registered without any delay. He further argued that the complainant also informed the OP in this regard after submitting the documents i.e. copy of FIR, insurance policy, his ID proof, affidavit etc., who wrongly repudiated his claim on 09.01.2020 & 17.01.2020. He further argued that the police investigated the matter but failed to trace the vehicle and submitted challan u/s 173 of Cr.PC. He further argued that the above act of OP of not releasing his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP.   

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has argued that admitted the policy in question. He further argued that the complainant failed to submit the requisite despite written request and ultimately, claim of complainant closed as “No Claim”, hence, there is deficiency in service, on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with costs.

9.                Undisputedly, the complainant is the registered owner of Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No.HR-37C-7136, vide Certificate of Registration Annexure C-1 and the same was insured with OP, vide motor vehicle policy commencing from 29.10.2019 to 28.10.2020, vide Motor Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance Annexure C-5. The said vehicle was stolen on 09.12.2019 and in this FIR No.0555 dated 09.12.2019 u/s 379 of IPC was lodged in PS Civil Line Kaithal Annexure C-8. The complainant also produced copy of order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the learned JMFC, Kaithal as Annexure-CZ, whereby, the Untrace Report produced by the concerned police has been accepted.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that he submitted the requisite documents with the OP and requested to release the claim amount, but the OP failed to release the claim amount. Contrary to it, the OP contended that the complainant failed to submit the requisite documents despite written request, therefore, the OP left with no other option except to close the claim of complainant as No Claim. Complainant as well as OP produced letters dated 09.01.2020, 17.01.2020 and 13.12.2020 Annexure C-4, C-3 and Annexure R-1 respectively, wherein, the OP demanded various documents, mentioned in those letters from the complainant.

11.              On this very point, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant submitted all the required documents for processing the claim to the OP. Complainant produced copies of those documents on the case file i.e. copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-1, Copy of Final Form/Report as Annexure C-2, copy of policy as Annexure C-5,  letter written to SHO, Kaithal regarding theft of vehicle in question, Lost Property Report as Annexure C-7, First Information Report as Annexure C-8. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant also produced duly sworn affidavit of complainant along with Consent Letter, Certificate of Fitness and Indemnity Bond on the case file. So, from the perusal of the above record, we found that the objections raised by the OP that complainant had not supplied the requisites documents/papers with OP till today, has no force, rather, from the documents, produced by the complainant on the case file as well as at the time of arguments, shows that the complainant has duly submitted all the requisite documents with OP.

12.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has not been able to prove the allegations, on the basis of which, OP had refused to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. Thus, the claim of complainant closed by the PP as ‘No Claim’, is held to be unjustified and amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP. As such, the OP is liable to pay the insured value of the vehicle in question along with compensation and litigation expenses, to the complainant.

13.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In the complaint, complainant demanded Rs.5 lacs as insured amount of the vehicle in question, but from perusal of policy document Annexure C-5, it is found that the insured value (IDV) of vehicle in question is Rs.2,55,879/- instead of Rs.5 lacs, hence, the OP is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.2,55,879/- to the complainant along with compensation and litigation expenses.  

14.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay the insured amount of Rs.2,55,879/- along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within 45 days, from today, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization. However, it is pertinent to mention here that whenever in future, in case, the vehicle in question has been traced out and the complainant got received the same, then the complainant shall handover the said vehicle along with its cancelled RC, to the OP.

15.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:22.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.