Order by:
Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that complainant purchased one Activa make Honda bearing registration no.PB-29AD-2664 on 28.08.2020. The complainant insured her vehicle from Opposite Parties, vide policy bearing no.D021817437/28082020 for the period 28.08.2020 to 27.08.2021. On 17.04.2021 at about 4.00 pm, the husband of the complainant parked the Activa in front of his shop and locked the same and went inside the shop. Thereafter at about 5.30 pm, when the husband of the complainant came out, the Activa in question was not there. Thereafter husband of the complainant tried his best to find the vehicle in question, but could not found the same. All the original documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Pollution Certificate and Insurance Certificate were laying in the Activa. Thereafter, he filed a complaint before the P.S. City, Moga, who entered the Rapat in FIR No.38 dated 30.03.2021 u/s 379IPC. The Opposite Parties were also informed telephonically on toll free number. Alleged that on 19.04.2021, the agent on behalf of the Opposite Parties contacted the complainant and complainant submitted all the details regarding the vehicle in question. Thereafter the agent of Opposite Parties sought certain documents from the complainant, which were duly supplied to him, through whatsapp. The agent of Opposite Parties further sought documents on 23.04.2021 and 24.04.2021, which were duly supplied. Thereafter documents were sent on 4th, 5th and 10th May, 2021. Alleged further that the agent further sought the documents on 02.08.2021, which were duly supplied. Then agent of the Opposite Parties asked for the keys of Activa, as one key of the Activa was already missing, so the complainant handed over the second key to the agent of the Opposite Parties. Despite completing all the formalities, the Opposite Parties refused to disburse the claim amount. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 10.09.2021 upon the Opposite Parties, but all in vain. Due to such act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
a) Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.65,418/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. with regard to insurance policy.
b) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.
c) And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint has been filed on false and frivolous facts and is not maintainable; the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and there is no registered office of Opposite Party at Moga, hence this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is a clear cut violation of Motor Vehicle Act as well as policy terms and conditions issued to complainant regarding the vehicle bearing no.PB-29AD-2664 and the same was insured vide policy no.D021817437 from 28.08.2020 to 27.08.2021 for own damage cover. The complainant has withheld material facts from this Commission as the insured had purchased a Honda Activa bearing no.PB-29AD-2664 on 28.08.2020 and on the same date policy was issued to said vehicle by answering Opposite Parties by issuing a cover note bearing policy no.D021817437 from 28.08.2020 to 27.08.2021 and insured the vehicle from the period 28.08.2020 to 27.08.2025 with a third party liability cover and from 28.08.2020 to 27.08.2021 P.A/Owner Driver Cover, subject to the policy terms and conditions and as per the complaint the vehicle in question was stolen on 17.04.2021 and he has lodged the claim on 19.04.2021 after two days of the stolen vehicle and after getting information the Opposite Parties appointed their investigator and seeks some documents to process the claim as alleged in the complaint and after getting documents and after proper verification the claim was repudiated by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 18.06.2021 and informed the complainant with a reason that ‘you have violated the policy terms and conditions and you are not entitled for the claim as per condition no.1 & 4 of the policy terms and conditions which are as under:-
Non Submission of valid OEM Keys/Unutilzed Key submitted with ‘Deliberate Grazing Marks’ over it and delay of intimation to the police/insurer repudiation letter.
The present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as the same is filed just to harass and humiliate the Opposite Parties. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.
3. The complainant has also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Parties denying the objections raised by Opposite Parties in its written reply.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14.
5. On the other hand, Opposite Parties have placed on record affidavit of Sh.Aniruddha, Senior Manager-Legal Ex.OPs/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs/2 & Ex.OPs/3.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record.
7. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Activa bearing registration no.PB-29AD-2664 and she insured her vehicle from Opposite Parties, vide policy bearing no.D021817437/28082020 for the period 28.08.2020 to 27.08.2021. On 17.04.2021, the said Activa was stolen by some unknown persons. Complainant also filed a complaint before the P.S. City, Moga. The Opposite Parties were also informed. However, the main grievance of the complainant is that despite completing all the formalities and despite being provided all the documents to the agent of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties repudiated his claim.
8. On the other hand, the contention of ld. counsel for Opposite Parties is that the complainant lodged the claim on 19.04.2021 i.e. after two days of the stolen vehicle in question. Further contended that after getting information, the Opposite Parties appointed investigator, who seeks some documents to process the claim and after getting documents and after proper verification, the claim was repudiated by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 18.06.2021.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted and well proved on record that the complainant got insured his Activa bearing registration no. PB-29AD-2664 from Opposite Parties. On 17.04.2021, the said Activa was stolen from outside of his shop. Thereafter, FIR No.38 dated 30.03.2021 U/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S.City, Moga against unknown persons. The claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party.
10. The main plea raised by the Opposite Parties in the repudiation letter is that valid OEM Keys/Unutilized Key not submitted and there was Deliberate Grazing Marks on the Key. It is apt to mention here that due to the constant and regular use of the vehicle, the keys of the vehicle might have worn down. Moreover, use of the key varies from person to person. It is not the proven case of the Opposite Parties that the complainant has left the key in the ignition of the vehicle when the theft took place. It is only a bald assertion of the Opposite Parties that complainant might have left the key in the ignition system of the vehicle in question. The second plea taken by the Opposite Parties in the repudiation letter is that the matter was reported to insurer on the Third Day of loss. We do not agree with the aforesaid contention raised by Opposite Parties, if theft of the vehicle is occurred, firstly the owner of the vehicle tried his best to find out the vehicle at its own and when he was unable to find the vehicle, then he reported the matter to the official i.e. Police or Insurance Company. Moreover, the delay of intimation in the present case is only a short delay and on this ground, the Opposite Parties cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment of case of “Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.” III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC), held as under:-
“Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This “take it or leave it”, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims.”
12. In such a situation the repudiation by the Opposite Party-Insurance Company regarding genuine claim of the complainant is not genuine.
13. Now come to the quantum of amount to be awarded to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant claimed the amount of Rs.65,418/-. However, perusal of the record reveals that policy of the vehicle in question is in first year and as per the policy document Ex.C5, the IDV of the vehicle in its first year is mentioned as Rs.62,466/-. Hence we allow the same.
14. From the discussion above, we partly allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.62,466/-(Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six only) i.e. IDV of the stolen vehicle in question to complainant, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney, indemnity bond and other required documents for transfer of Registration certificate of the vehicle in question, NOC from the financiers of the vehicle in question if any, by the complainant in favour of the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties are further directed to pay compository amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation and litigation costs to the complainant. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, they are further burdened with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in Open Commission
