Complainant Luxmi Trading Company, through its Sole Proprietor Pawan

Kumar Aggarwal through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.16,89,060/- to him i.e. sum assured as claimed amount which is an agreed value alongiwth interest @ 12% per annum and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment caused to him besides costs of complaint amounting to Rs.11,000/- and other relief which he is found entitled to under law and equity.

2.           The case of the complainant in brief is that he obtained the impugned insurance policy bearing no.97901330 valid from 07.05.2016 to 06.05.2017 covering Fortuner Car of Toyota registered at Batala bearing registration no.PB-06-Z-2014 sum assured Rs.16,89,060/-(IDV) Insured Declared Value is an agreed value for the policy period and the abovesaid insurance was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party against the payment of requisite payment amounting to Rs.65,247/- and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. His Fortuner Car having its Chasis No.MBJ11JV6104027669, Engine No.1KD4518257, Make Toyota, Model Fortuner, Fuel Type Diesel, Color White and the vehicle has been purchased by him for personal/domestic use for himself as well as his family members. He has further pleaded that only schedule of policy was provided and no other document setting its terms and conditions was supplied by the opposite parties. Unluckily, the Fortuner Car was stolen on 26.05.2016 in between 12.00 a.m to 08.00 a.m while it was parked in front of House No.D-1 First Floor, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-110015 and the matter was reported to Police Authority and an F.I.R.No.015616 dated 26.05.2016 U/s 379 IPC was got registered at Police Station Crime Branch Delhi on the statement of Puneet Aggarwal son of Sh.Pawan Kumar Aggarwal and opposite party was also informed about the abovesaid theft of vehicle and the opposite party registered impugned claim bearing No.11971A and all the requirements and formalities were complied with by him as per instructions of the opposite parties from time to time. The opposite parties appointed investigator M/s.ESSPL and all the requirements asked by the concerned investigator of M/s.ESSPL were also supplied by him from time to time. He and his son made several visits to the local office of opposite parties in order to know the status of claim but received no satisfactory reply. The opposite parties did not pay any heed towards his genuine and legitimate requests  and rather have illegally and unlawfully closed his genuine claim vide its closure letter dated 7.4.2017 on the basis of false, frivolous, vague and baseless plea. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.        Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the present complaint has not been filed through authorized person and as such the present complaint is not maintainable; actually, the claim has been filed but all the formalities have not been completed. The letters dated 24.11.2016, 8.12.2016, 5.1.2017 and 2.3.2017 have been sent to the complainant and demand of documents/information has been made but the complainant failed to complete the formalities due to which the claim of complainant has been closed vide closer letter dated 7.4.2017. So, there is no deficiency in services on the part of complainant and it is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill his part of obligation; the complaint is premature as the claim has been closed due to non-submission of documents and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and even otherwise the liability of insurance company is only as per terms and conditions of the policy and that too after deducting the compulsory deductible clause and as per value of the vehicle as per IRDA rules.  On merits, it was submitted that the complainant got his vehicle insured from the opposite party. The period of policy and the amount of premium is subject verification. The complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as the vehicle was purchased in the name of firm and for commercial purpose and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The vehicle is in the name of Luxmi Trading Company and this fact is clearly shows that complainant purchased it for commercial purpose. The policy alongwith terms and conditions have been duly supplied to the complainant. No application or complaint has ever been sent by the complainant to the insurance company regarding non-receiving of policy and its terms and conditions and this fact clearly shows that the complainant is making false excuses.  Inspite of repeated reminders, the complainant failed to fulfill the requisite formalities and failed to provide the relevant documents duly mentioned in the letter sent to him and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of proprietor of Luxmi Trading Company Sh.Pawan Kumar complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C33 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Rajan Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-1 along with other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-19 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the alleged delay, non-settlement/closure/repudiation (at the hands of the OP insurers) of the complainant’s insured vehicle’s theft-claim for the policy IDV of Rs 16,89,060/- pertaining to the loss incurred on account of the untraced theft of their Fortuner MUV Car insured with the OP Insurers; hence the present complaint. The complainant has duly proved his allegations (per Affidavit Ex.C1) vide various evidentiary documents exhibited here as: Ex.C2 to Ex.C33.  

7.       The OP insurers have not admitted the impugned claim repudiation/ closure (Ex.C17/ Ex.OP2) but have instead addressed the present ‘complaint’ to be ‘premature’ on account of its closure at their end due to non-submission of some of the documents by the complainant as were repeatedly requisitioned by the OP insurers to settle the complaint. The OP insurers have produced its affidavit Ex.OP1 and evidentiary documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP19 in support of its rebutting contentions etc.

8.       We are certainly not convinced with the basic logic as put forth by the OP insurers to support its impugned closure (amounting to repudiation) of the otherwise a valid theft-loss claims simply on the grounds of alleged non-submission of the OP requisitioned documents that are presently available on the record proceedings including the ones as submitted by the OP insurers, themselves. Thus the impugned delay, closure and non-settlement surely indicates of hue of unfair trade practices as adopted by the insurers.    However, we find that the resultant non-settlement/repudiation has neither been necessary nor fair measured against the fact that the insured MUV Car was indeed stolen as proved per the evidence produced on records and as such the instant repudiation amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP insurers and that rakes them up to an adverse statutory award under the applicable Act.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled OP insurers to settle and pay the claim amount in terms of the related policy in settlement of the impugned theft claim as above to the present complainant besides to pay them a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation (for having caused harassment) within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders. Of course, the OP’s shall be at its liberty to take disciplinary action and/or to claim reimbursement or otherwise recover the award-amount from its delinquent staff/officials found responsible for the lapse, as per its own discretionary prerogative.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.           

       (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President.                                                                                

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

July, 23, 2018                                                           Member.

*MK*