Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 479.
Instituted on : 04.10.2018.
Decided on :28.08.2019.
Sanjay Malik age 42 years, s/o Sh.Ramchander R/o village Kharawar Tehsil Sampla Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Iffco Tokio General Insurance company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Plot No.2B & 2C, Sector 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
- Varun Sehgal s/o Raju Sehgal, J.P.Market, Hissar Road, Rothak(insurance agent of opposite party No.1.).
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Model Town, Near D-Park, Rohtak(Financer of Insured Truck bearing its Reg. No.HR-46C-8176).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh.V.S.Malik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Behl, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Jitender Kumer Hooda, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Oppsoite party No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of a Truck vide its registration No.HR-46C-8176 which was insured with the opposite party under policy no.97549781 valid from 16.04.2016 to 15.04.2017 and financed by opposite party No.3. That on 05.11.2016 the driver parked the said vehicle at 7.00PM near Santosh Janak Dharam Knanta at Village Bhudpur, Delhi. The driver went to take food after properly locking the vehicle and the complainant went at the house of his relative. When the complainant alongwith his relative reached the place, the said vehicle was not found there. They made their best efforts to search out the vehicle, but failed. After that the relative of complainant made call on 100 no. of police and police reached the place and tried to search the vehicle. That police recorded the statement of complainant, on which FIR No.032808 dated 06.11.2016 was registered in P.S.Alipur. Police also mentioned the said occurrence in daily diary reference vide its entry no.15A,. That complainant informed the opposite party regarding the theft of the said vehicle on toll free number. After that opposite party appointed surveyor who received all relevant documents from the complainant. The complainant also submitted claim form through the said surveyor. Opposite party issued reminder to the complainant regularly which were duly replied. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the opposite parties within time. But despite repeated requests of the complaiannt, opposite parties failed to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to give the assured amount of Rs.1550000/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complaint is premature, the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents insptie of reminders by the answering respondent company. The respondent insurance company has approved the theft claim of insured vehicle for Rs.1238500/- and sent letter to the insured/complainant dated 23.10.2018 and subsequent reminder on 26.11.2018 to comply with the documents mentioned therein. But till date, complainant has not submitted the necessary documents for payment of insurance claim. It is further submitted that complainant very casually intimated the theft of vehicle to answering respondent on 14.11.2016 belated by 9 days whereas the vehicle was stolen on 05.11.2016. The complainant violated the condition number 01 of the insurance policy which speaks immediate notice to insurer in the event of any claim. The complainant also failed to supply one ignition and one cabin key of the stolen vehicle and failed to provide requested documents. Hence the company found that the claim falls under the category of non-standard claims due to violation of policy conditions and accordingly the respondent company vide its letter dated 23.10.2018 approved the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1238500/- being 80% of the IDV of the vehicle, further less policy excess of Rs.2000/- and this letter was duly sent to complainant and desired some mandatory documents mentioned therein for disbursal of claim amount. On merits, it is submitted that to process the payment, the complainant is required to submit the documents such as original R.C. duly freezed/blocked by RTA, letter of subrogation on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- duly notarized in the format, discharge voucher duly signed by Insured and the financer, if applicable, provide cancelled cheque, set of form 29 & 30 duly signed by the Insured, Indemnity Bond on non-judicial stamp paper duly notarized, consent letter on Rs.100/- on non-judicial stamp and notarized etc. The complainant has not submitted the documents as mentioned in the letter dated 23.10.2018 . Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of refusal. Hence opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.11.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that para no.1 of the complaint is a matter of record and para no.2 to 9 are not concerned with the opposite party no.3. Hence needs no reply. That complainant has paid all his dues towards opposite party No.3 and NOC has been issued in the name of complainant by opposite party No.3.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed his evidence on dated 20.05.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on dated 04.07.2019. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.3 made a statement that reply already filed in this case be read as affidavit, tendered affidavit Ex.R3/1, and closed his evidence on dated 30.05.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, theft of the vehicle is not disputed. The opposite party has approved the theft claim of insured vehicle on non-standard basis for Rs.1238500/- but the same has not been paid to the complainant on the ground that complainant has not submitted the requisite documents despite repeated requests and reminders. In this regard it is observed that as per the complainant, all the necessary documents have been submitted to the surveyor of company and the photocopy of the same has been placed on record. The complainant has also placed on record copy of reply of reminders Ex.C16 & Ex.C17 as per which all the documents have been supplied to the opposite party and on the basis of which, the claim has been settled by the surveyor. It is also on record that report of surveyor has not been placed on record by the opposite party to prove that ignition key of cabin key or any other document has not been submitted by the complainant to the surveyor or the company. As such, respondent has failed to prove the same. The other plea taken by the opposite party is that there is delay of 9 days in giving intimation to the company. In this regard it is observed that as per copy of FIR Ex.C9, the date of theft is 05.11.2016 and the FIR has been lodged on 06.11.2016. Hence there is no delay in giving intimation to the police about the theft. The main stress for giving immediate information to the company or to the police is only with regard to conducting investigation of the case to know, as to whether the theft of the vehicle actually took place or not and to ensure conviction to the offender. In the case in hand, no prejudice has been caused to the insurance company as the police was immediately informed about the theft of the vehicle and regarding the delay of 9 days in giving intimation to the opposite party, we have also placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 20.09.2018 titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party No.1 is illegal and against the natural justice. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the IDV of vehicle as mentioned in the policy Ex.C1 to the complainant. As per reply filed by opposite party No.3, the complainant has paid all his dues towards opposite party No.3.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.1550000/-(Rupees fifteen lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.10.2018 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.08.2019.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
