Karan Saini, complainant has filed the present complaint against The Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called, the OP) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the total insured declared value of the Fiat Linea Car bearing registration no.PB-06-L-7770 for Rs.4,50,000/-. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony, Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- as parking charges of the car in the Garage of Cargo Motors at Jallandhar for six months. On the abovesaid amounts interest @ 18% per annum also be granted from the date of loss till its realization to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he got his Fiat Linea Car bearing registration no.PB-06-L-7770 comprehensively inured from the agent of opposite parties at Gurdaspur and paid the premium of Rs.17,758/- which was valid from 5.9.2014 to midnight 4.9.2015. This policy was Zero Depreciation Cap and as such he is consumer of the opposite party. On 16.10.2014, he was coming out of his farmhouse situated at village Marrara and while reversing his car Fiat Linea Car it slightly hit a motorcycle of a person standing there. There arose a quarrel between him and the person with whose motorcycle his car slightly hit while reversing. On the next morning when he came to his farmhouse, he found that those people alongwith some other miscreants’ crashed the gate of the farmhouse and set on fire his Fiat Linea Car bearing registration no.PB-06-L-7770. Due to this, his car was completely damaged in the fire and was a total loss. The persons who set his car on fire were politically so strong that instead of lodging FIR against those persons, the police registered a false case on false facts against him. He was arrested in the false FIR No.70 dated 17.10.2014 and he was released on bail on 21.10.2014. He informed the opposite parties and the intimation regarding the loss of the Fiat Linea Car was sent on 24.10.2014 because all the documents relating to the above mentioned car were burnt in the fire and it took two days to get the insurance policy and other documents. He has further pleaded that opposite party appointed Sh.Vikas Mahajan, Surveyor for the spot inspection of the loss of the car and the said surveyor inspected his car. He performed all the formalities required to be performed by him and handed over all the documents which were required by the opposite party. The opposite party has raised certain queries about the claim in their letter dated 2.3.2015 and he gave reply to all the queries raised by the opposite party vide his reply dated 30.4.2015. He was astonished to receive letter dated 26.5.2015 issued by the opposite party, whereby his genuine claim was declined on flimsy grounds. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. On notice, the OP filed its written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. The matter of fact is that many letters have been sent to the complainant to clarify some facts but he failed to clarify the queries, which are very much relevant as per terms and conditions of the policy and amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. As such the claim has been repudiated. Many letters had been written to the opposite party on different dates. The four queries have been put which the complainant has to answer. The first query is regarding the delay intimation, the second query is detailed in para no.2 and 3 of the said letter dated 2.3.2015, in which it has been clearly stated that as per terms and conditions of the policy the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage, but in the present case there is negligence on the part of the complainant, due to which the alleged loss has occurred. Further in the shape of 4th query, the request had been make to provide the relevant documents. The complainant failed to give any reply. Further again the letter dated 16.4.2015 through registered post with same queries has been sent to the complainant, but no reply has been received due to which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 26.5.2015 on the ground of delay intimation. Non-providing of supportive documents since complainant failed to take reasonable steps and is grossly negligent, which is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and further for non-providing of the relevant documents detailed and described in the letter dated 26.5.2015. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. On merits, it was submitted that the surveyor has been duly appointed namely Sunil Chawla and he also submitted his final Survey report. Vikas Mahajan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor submitted preliminary Survey report only. Further the matter has been investigated by the Investigator clearly shows that the claimant and his gang is involved in criminal activities and due to which the police arrested them. So, the fault is of the complainant who indulged in such activities and failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the car. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.CW2/A, of Ram Lubhaya Ex.CW3/A and of Ashwani Sharma Ex.CW4/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Abhilash Chander Authorized Signatory Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP21 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We find that the OP insurers have repudiated the impugned Insurance Claim vides their repudiation letter Ex.C16/Ex.OP2 dated 26.05.2015 on account of the non-submission of supportive documents to clarify the reasons of: i) ‘delay’ caused in intimating the fire-loss incident of 16.10.2014 on 24.10.2014 only, ii) the complainant’s allegation of ‘wrong’ FIR # 70 of 16.10.2014 filed against him under political influence and iii) parking the insured car negligently ‘un-attended’ at the time of its getting ‘torched’ by the rival party. We, however, find that the complainant has satisfactorily explained the above ‘3’ objections as raised by the OP insurers through ‘cogent’ evidence duly produced during the course of the present proceedings. The ‘delay’ in intimating the ‘fire-loss’ of 16.10.2014 to the OP insurers is explained by the ‘arrest’ of the complainant ExCW1/A on 16.10.2014 itself, in FIR # 70 Ex.C6 and getting ‘bail-out’ orders Ex.C5 only on 21.10.2014 and intimating the ‘fire-incident’ on 24.10.2014 on coming out of the District Jail; as was duly explained by the complainant in his letter of 30.04.2015 Ex.OP14 to the OP insurers. Further, the copy of Affidavit Ex.C11 by the filer-complainant of FIR # 70, copy of the ‘compromise’ agreement Ex.C10, copy of petition # CRM-M 22745/ 2015 U/s 482 Cr P C (Ex.OP12) before the honorable P & H High Court, Chandigarh & and finally the Orders Ex.OP13 (Notice of motion for 11.12.2015) dated 16.07.2015 satisfactorily rebut the OP’s above objection # (ii); and finally ‘parking’ of the insured Car inside the complainant’s property (Farm-House) sufficiently rebuts the OP insurers’ ‘bald’ allegations of negligent & un-attended parking. Further, the terms as per the policy wordings Ex.OP10 do not bar the ‘insurance claim’ on account of the ‘criminal’ activities of the ‘insured’ so far as the ‘damage/loss’ incurred to the insured ‘car’ is not resulted out of the same. Thus, the OP insurers have been legally liable to settle the impugned claim to the full insured IDV as per the admitted total-loss (duly assessed vides Ex.C7/ Ex.OP12/Ex.OP13) having incurred to the ‘torched-car’ and the present repudiation amounting to ‘deficiency in service’ has labeled/ paneled them to an adverse award under the Act.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay the impugned Claim in question as per the full IDV of the related Policy to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation (inclusive of cost of litigation) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the full awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
December 24,2015. Member
*MK*
