STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager, Claim Hub.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Kanwar Bhanu Pratap Singh, son of Kanwar Rajinder Singh, permanent resident of House No.1542/1, Rana Haveli, Man Majra, U.T., Chandigarh.

Temporary Address No.1- House No.471, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana) – 134112.

Temporary Address No.2- House No.C36A, Ardee City, Sector 52, Gurgaon.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.V.Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.04.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-

“i)  Pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-  to the complainant being the IDV of the car;

ii)    Pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

iii)   Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.2,75,000/- i.e. [Rs.2,25,000 + Rs.50,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.28.09.2010 till actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”.

2.        The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got his car (Santro), bearing registration No.HR 03 J-2882, insured for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.2,25,000/- with the United India Insurance Company Limited, vide Policy No.1102043109 P000051260. The said policy was valid from 19.12.2009 to 18.12.2010. On 9.5.2010, at 2.30 a.m., when the complainant was going from Heritage City, Gurgaon, to Andree City, Sector 52, Gurgaon, in his car, he stopped near Galleria Market turn, Gurgaon, to urinate. When he came back, he did not find his car. He lodged FIR No.183 dated 9.5.2010 at Police Station DLF Qutab Enclave, Sector 29, Gurgaon. The matter was investigated by the police, but it failed to trace the car, and, ultimately, presented the untraced report, before the Court on 24.6.2010. Intimation, in this regard, was given to the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Limited SCO No.52, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh. Thereafter, intimation, in this regard was also given to the Delhi Office of the Insurance Company on 13.5.2010. The complainant also wrote letter on 22.6.2010, to the Branch Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.52, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh, followed by subsequent reminders dated 24.6.2010 and 28.6.2010. He also supplied all the required documents, to the Surveyor, who visited the complainant in the first week of July 2010. Despite all this, no action was taken, by the Insurance Company, indemnifying the loss, suffered by the complainant, on account of the theft of his car.  It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.        In the written statements, filed by the United India Insurance Co. on behalf of  Opposite Parties No.1 to 5, it admitted the factual matrix of the case, regarding the insurance of the car, in question, by the Insurance Company, for the period from 19.12.2009 to 18.12.2010. It was, however, stated that the address of the complainant, in the insurance policy, was given as House No.471, Sector 4, Panchkula-134109, but during investigation, it was found, that the insured was residing at B-36A, Andree City, Gurgaon. It was further stated that the complainant, did not cooperate with the Investigator appointed by the Opposite Parties, as he failed to provide him the details of the circumstances, in which, the theft occurred. It was further stated that, thus, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite parties.

4.        The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.        After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited. However, it was found that the United India Insurance Company Limited, had not been arrayed as a party, to the original complaint, by the complainant, though, infact, the written statement was filed by it, and the complaint was being defended by it.

7.        With a view to remove the technical objection, an application was filed by the respondent/complainant during the pendency of appeal, for impleading the United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager, as a party to the complaint. That application was allowed, vide order dated 16.11.2011. Accordingly, the complaint, impleading United India Insurance Company Limited, as a party, was filed.

8.        The Counsel for the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited, newly added as Opposite Party No.6, to the complaint, however, submitted that the said party, did not want to file any reply, to the complaint, after its impleadment, and, also, does not want to lead any further evidence.

9.        We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

10.     The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that though the alleged theft took place on 09.05.2010 at 2.00 a.m., and the F.I.R., was immediately lodged by the complainant, yet, he, for the first time, informed the Insurance Company, with regard to the theft of his car, on 13.05.2010. He further submitted that, since information to the Insurance Company, regarding the theft of car, was given after the delay of four days, it was deprived of properly investigating the claim of the complainant. He further submitted that, according to the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, the insured was required to inform the Company, regarding the theft of car, immediately. He further submitted that, by not doing so, the complainant, breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further submitted that even, the complainant, did not cooperate with the Investigator appointed by the appellant, as a result whereof, his claim  could not be properly investigated. He further submitted that, as such, the appellant, was not deficient, in rendering service, but the District Forum, was wrong in holding so. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, thus, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

11.     On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the theft of the car, was committed, during the currency of the Insurance policy. He further submitted that, intimation, in the instant case, was given to the United India Insurance Company Limited Chandigarh on 10.05.2010, vide Annexure C-9, but on its asking, again intimation was given to the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on 13.05.2010, vide Annexure C-10 . He further submitted that the FIR was lodged on 09.05.2010, when the theft of the car, was committed. He further submitted that, thus,  there was no delay, in giving the intimation.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

12.     After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the car, in question, was got insured by the respondent/complainant for the Insured  Declared Value of Rs.2,25,000/-, with the   United India Insurance Company Limited (appellant/ Opposite Party No.6), for the period from 19.12.2009 to 18.12.2010, after paying the requisite premium. The theft of the car, was committed on 09.05.2010 at 02.30 a.m.  It is evident from Annexure C-7, copy of the F.I.R., that it was lodged on the same day. The car has not so far been recovered. The Police has already presented the untraced report in the Court. In para. no. 5 of the complaint, filed after the impleadment of United India Insurance Company as Opposite Party No.6, in clear-cut terms, it was stated by the complainant, that on 10.05.2010, he intimated the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.52 (infact SCO No.53), Sector 26, Chandigarh, regarding the theft of car, vide letter Annexure C-9. This fact was not denied by Opposite Party No.6(now appellant), impleaded as a party to the complaint, by filing reply, to the same. Later on, intimation with regard to the theft of the car, was also given to the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, on 13.05.2010,  vide Annexure C-10. Under these circumstances, there was no delay, in giving intimation of the theft of his car, by the complainant to the appellant. Therefore, there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.     Now coming to the factum, as to whether, the complainant, cooperated with the Investigator of the Insurance Company or not, it may be stated here, that no reliable evidence was produced, on record, in this regard. The investigator/Surveyor, enquired from the complainant, as to how, the lock of the car was opened by the person, who committed theft; how he started the car and drove away the same, within one or two minutes, with duplicate keys; and how the complainant did not come to know of this factum. Such questions, put by the Investigator/Surveyor to the complainant, could not be possibly answered by him(complainant) According to the complainant, he got down from his car, to urinate, when, in the meanwhile, after opening the lock of the vehicle, somebody took it away. The incident took place about 2.30 a.m., at night, when there was no light, at that place. How could the complainant say, as to, in which manner, with the duplicate keys, the thief opened the car and took it away. No inquiry was made by the Investigator/Surveyor, from any independent person, or from the nearby locality, if any person, therefrom, was present, at the spot, as to how the theft took place. Such questions, could only be answered by the person, who took away the car, after committing theft or an eye witness, if any, was present at that time. On the basis of such irrelevant questions/ factors, in our considered opinion, the Insurance Company, could not legally repudiate the claim of the complainant. It is, therefore, held that the claim of the respondent/complainant, was not settled by the Insurance Company, on flimsy and non-existent grounds. The District Forum, was, also right in holding, that the Insurance Company, did not settle the claim of the complainant  on flimsy grounds. The District Forum, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that non-settlement of the claim  of the complainant, was unjustified.  The District Forum was right in holding that the complainant was entitled to be indemnified for the loss of vehicle, which was insured. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

14.     No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

15.     The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

16.     For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

17.     The complaint filed by the complainant, after impleadment of United Insurance Company, as Opposite Party No.6, in pursuance of the order dated 16.11.2011, passed by this Commission, be placed on the District Forum file, after retaining an attested to be true copy of the same on the appeal file.

18.     Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 2, 2012                                                                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg