Haryana

Kurukshetra

237/2017

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

N.D.Sharma

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.237 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 02.11.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:25.01.2019.

Satnam Singh (aged about 36 years) son of Shri Amreek Singh son of Sh. Banta Singh, resident of Village Chammu Kalan, Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (Opposite Indira Gandhi School) IInd Flor Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Manager.
2. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager.
3. Kalra Insurance Services Ambala Hissar Road Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor Pankaj Kalra S/o Ashok Kumar.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. N.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 2.

                Sh. Arun Sharma, Adv. for Op No.3. 

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Satnam Singh against Iffco-Tokio General Insurance and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured his tractor bearing registration No.HR41G-7505 with the Ops No.1 & 2 through Op No.3.  It is alleged that on 26.01.2017 the said tractor was stolen in the area of Bus Stand, Ismailabad, Distt. Kurukshetra.  Information regarding theft of tractor was given to the Ops.  The complainant went to Police Station, Ismailabad on the same day and made a complaint regarding the theft of his tractor but the local police did not register the FIR on 26.01.2017 rather asked the complainant to trace his tractor in the area for some days and registered the FIR on 29.01.2017 under Section 379 IPC.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops No.1 & 2 and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops No.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 01.04.2017.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay the insured amount of Rs.4,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum.  Ops No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant himself is at fault as the vehicle was stolen on 26.01.2017 and the FIR was lodged on 29.01.2017 after 3 days.  The insurance company was intimated on 26.02.2017 i.e. after 30 days of the alleged theft.  Failure of the complainant to lodge the FIR immediately after the alleged theft and thereafter immediately intimate the company is valid reason for repudiation of the claim of complainant by the company, thus, the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated by the Ops as per terms and condition No.1 of the policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op no.3 filed the reply and stated that the complainant purchased one insurance policy No.69614055 dt. 20.10.2016 of his tractor Swaraj 735 bearing registration No.HR41G-7505 from the Op No.3; that the complainant did not pay the premium in time; that it is the liability of the insurance company to pass the clam or reject the claim; that the Op No.3 is the authorized agent of insurance company.  The other contents mentioned in the complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-A to Annexure-I and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavits, Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has purchased one insurance policy bearing No.69614055 dt. 20.10.2016 of his tractor from the Ops No.1 & 2 through Op No.3, who is authorized agent of Ops No.1 & 2.  The period of insurance was valid w.e.f. 20.10.2016 to 19.10.2017.  The complainant has paid premium of the said insurance policy through Op No.3 at Ismailabad, Distt. Kurukshetra.  On 26.01.2017 at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant came to village Ismailabad on his tractor for his personal work and he parked his tractor near Bus Stand of Village Ismilabad, Distt. Kurukshetra by locking the same and went to market.  After some time when he came back, he did not find his tractor there.  The complainant searched his tractor nearby but the same was not found and stolen by someone else.  The complainant informed the Ops on the same day through Op No.3 and also reported the matter to the police on the same day but the local police registered the FIR on 29.01.2017.  The Ops No.1 & 2 have repudiated the claim of complainant on the two grounds firstly the delay in FIR and secondly, not giving the information to the Ops in time.  The counsel of complainant also contended that the investigator of Ops in his report, Ex.R1 admitted the fact of theft, so, the claim of complainant may please be passed.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2017(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) page 758 titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another; 2011(1) CPC page 197 titled as NIC Vs. Kamal Singhal (NC); 2011(3) CPC page 422 titled as Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & others Vs. Charanjit Kaur etc. (NC) and 2012(2) ACJ page 606 (SC) titled as The Church of Christ Charitable Trust Vs. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust.

9.             On the other hand, both the counsel of Ops contended that the repudiation of claim of complainant was done by the Ops No.1 & 2 on the two grounds mentioned in Annexure-2 as under:-

i.      Based on the investigation report & documents on record, it has been observed that the vehicle was stolen on 26.01.2017 for which FIR was lodged on 29.01.2017 after delay of about 3 days.

ii.      The vehicle was stolen on 26.01.2017 for which intimation given to ITGI on 26.02.2017 after a delay of about 30 days.

                The counsel of Ops further contended that the above-said vehicle is financed by Cholamandlam.  The complainant has not made the Cholamandam as a party.  So, both the counsel of Ops prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.            On perusal of investigator report, it is seen that the fact of theft is admitted by him.  Information regarding theft of tractor was given to the police on the same day but the police has registered the FIR on 29.01.2017.  The contention of Ops that the complainant has not made the financier Cholamadlam has no force because on this point, the complainant has submitted the authority titled as The Church of Christ Charitable Trust Vs. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust (supra), wherein it has been held that “Non-joinder of party-Party against whom no relief is claimed in application is not necessary party at all”.  So far as the delay is concerned, on this point we can rely upon the authority submitted by the counsel of complainant Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another (supra).  So, in view of facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the above mentioned two authorities, we are of the considered view that the Ops No.1 & 2 have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and they are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Ops No.1 & 2 and direct the Ops No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.4,70,000/- as insured amount of tractor to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that in case the vehicle is recovered in future and is handed over to the complainant, he shall be bound to transfer the RC of the vehicle in favour of the Ops No.1 & 2 and further shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the Ops No.1 & 2 immediately thereafter.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dt.:25.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.