BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.302/16.
Date of instt.: 03.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 02.05.2017.
Mahavir S/o Sh. Shamsher Singh, R/o 39, Ward No.87, Pundri, District Kaithal-136027 (Haryana).
……….Complainant.
Versus
- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kaithal, Opposite I.G.College, Kaithal-136027.
- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Registered & Head Office-24, White Road, Chennai-600014.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sunil Polist, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a second hand truck bearing registration No.HR-46B/0036 for his livelihood and got insured the same with the Ops vide policy No.1107053114P105832058 for the period valid w.e.f. 27.10.2014 to 26.10.2015. It is alleged that on 14.08.2015 the complainant got heart problem and he got admit in Shah Hospital, Kaithal and thereafter, his family member took him to Patialia. It is further alleged that during course of the treatment, the aforesaid truck was stood by the brother namely Sushil of the complainant in the shop of Karamvir Mistery on 17.08.2015 for its repair. It is further alleged that on 18.08.2015, the brother of complainant informed the complainant that the aforesaid truck is not at the shop of Karamvir Mistery as the same has been stolen by unknown person. It is further alleged that information regarding theft of vehicle was given by brother of complainant to Op No.1 but the official of Op No.1 told to the brother of complainant that this information should be given by the registered owner and on this, the brother of complainant told that the registered owner, his real brother, is admitted in Patiala. It is further alleged that on the same day, the brother of complainant had made contacted to Sh. Sunil Polist, Adv. and a letter of intimation about the aforesaid truck was given to the Op No.1 by Sh. Sunil Polist, Adv. It is further alleged that thereafter, FIR No.264 dt. 21.08.2015 under Section 379 IPC was got registered in P.S.Pundri. It is further alleged that the claim was lodged with the Ops and all the required documents were submitted but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 09.09.2016. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops; that the complainant failed to inform the answering Ops about the alleged theft immediately as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that in the present case, the answering Ops received intimation for the first time after 166 days of alleged theft of vehicle, thus, the answering Ops have been deliberately deprived off an opportunity to investigate the matter and hence, the claim under the policy was rightly repudiated under intimation to the complainant. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and closed evidence on 02.02.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R8 and closed evidence on 20.03.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased a second hand truck bearing registration No.HR-46B/0036 for his livelihood and got insured the same with the Ops vide policy No.1107053114P105832058 for the period valid w.e.f. 27.10.2014 to 26.10.2015. He further argued that on 14.08.2015 the complainant got heart problem and he got admit in Shah Hospital, Kaithal and thereafter, his family member took him to Patialia. He further argued that during course of the treatment of complainant, the aforesaid truck was stolen on 18.08.2015 by unknown person. He further argued that the information regarding theft of vehicle was given by brother of complainant to Op No.1 but the official of Op No.1 told to the brother of complainant that this information should be given by the registered owner and on this, the brother of complainant told to the Op No.1 that the registered owner is his real brother and he is admitted in hospital at Patiala. He further argued that on the same day, the brother of complainant had contacted Sh. Sunil Polist, Adv. and intimation about the theft of aforesaid truck was given to the Op No.1 through Sh. Sunil Polist, Adv. vide letter dt. 18.08.2015, Annexure-C4. He further argued that thereafter, FIR No.264 dt. 21.08.2015 under Section 379 IPC was got registered in P.S.Pundri and the copy of FIR was also sent to Op No.1 through aforesaid Sh. Sunil Polist, Adv. vide letter dt. 22.08.2015, Annexure-C5. He further argued that the claim was lodged with the Ops and all the required documents were submitted but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 09.09.2016. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted a copy of order passed in case titled as NIA Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & others, bearing revision petition No.629 of 2015 decided on 03.08.2015 by Hon’ble National Commission. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant failed to inform the Ops about the alleged theft immediately as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further argued that the Ops received intimation for the first time after 166 days of alleged theft of vehicle, thus, the answering Ops have been deliberately deprived off an opportunity to investigate the matter and hence, the claim under the policy was rightly repudiated under intimation to the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the Ops submitted a copy of order passed by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs. Harleen Kaur and another bearing revision petition No.2850 of 2015 decided on 10.08.2016.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that there is no dispute between the parties that the complainant got insured the truck in question with the Ops and the same was stolen on 18.08.2015. The dispute between the parties is that as per Ops, information was given to the Ops after 166 days of alleged theft of vehicle whereas, according to the complainant, the intimation regarding theft of vehicle was given on the same day i.e. 18.08.2015 through registered post. The complainant has placed on the file letter dt. 18.08.2015, Annexure-C4 vide which the intimation regarding theft of vehicle was given through Sh. Sunil Polist, Adv. on the same day of theft of vehicle i.e. 18.08.2015 through registered post and to support his version, he also placed on the file postal receipt, Annexure-C11. Further, the complainant has also placed on file letter Annexure-C5, which clearly shows that the copy of FIR bearing No.264 dt. 21.08.2015 under Section 379 IPC was also sent to the Ops through Sh. Sunil Polist, Adv. through registered post, as is clear from the postal receipt, Annexure-C12 placed on the file by the complainant. The Ops have relied upon the report of Grover Associates, who stated in his report that the information regarding the theft of vehicle was given after 166 days. The investigator relied on the joint statement of insured and his brother but no signed statement of the insured and his brother has been placed on the file by the Ops. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found force in the contention of complainant that he gave information about the theft of vehicle to the Ops on the same day, as is proved by letter Annexure-C4 and postal receipt Annexure-C11. Similarly, the contention of complainant has force that he had sent the copy of FIR bearing No.264 dt. 21.08.2015, P.S.Pundri vide letter dt. 22.08.2015, Annexure-C5 and postal receipt, Annexure-C12. The authority produced by ld. Counsel for the Ops is not applicable to the facts of present case. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground of delay of 166 days and thus, are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.9,00,000/- as IDV of the vehicle in question, subject to furnishing of subrogation letter, transfer the ownership of vehicle in the name of Ops and other documents as required by the Ops. The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.3300/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days after furnishing of subrogation letter, transfer the ownership of vehicle in the name of Ops and other documents as required by the Ops. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.02.05.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
