BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
Complaint No. 24 of 2014
Date of Institution: 14.3.2014
Date of final order: 20.5.2016
Dhanda Breeding Farm Pvt. Ltd. office at H.No.467 Urban Estate, Jind through its Manager Dalbir Singh Chahal r/o H.No.2137 Urban Estate, Jind, District Jind.
….Complainant.
Versus
Kuldeep Ahlawat s/o Sh. Ramphal Singh Ahlawat Insurance, Narwana road, Patiala Chowk, Jind.
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)302022 through its Manager.
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. P.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.
ORDER:
The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant’s Firm deals in hatchery business in the name and style of M/s Dhanda Breeding Farm. The complainant’s firm had purchased Hero Honda Splander Plus Motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR-31G-4283 for a sum of Rs.42,700/- vide bill No.20795 dated 7.10.2011 from National Auto Mobiles, Jind and the same was got insured vide policy
Dhanda Breeding Vs. Kuldeep Ahlawat etc.
..2…
No.102016/31/12/006085 covering risk for one year by opposite party No.1 i.e. agent of opposite party No.2. The complainant firm had purchased this Motor-cycle for use of its employees and all the employees time to time used to ply the same for the work of complainant. It is alleged that on 30.5.2012 one of the employee of complainant’s firm namely Surender Kumar after locking the motor-cycle parked the same outside the office. After some time, Surender came out from the office then found that the motor-cycle was not at the place where it was parked and have been stolen by unknown person. All the original documents i.e. R.C. and Insurance were in the motor-cycle and those documents were also stolen by unknown person. The complainant’s firm informed the opposite parties regarding the stolen of his vehicle and submitted all the necessary documents with the opposite parties. The police of P.S. City Jind was reported the matter about the theft of motor-cycle and the police registered a case bearing FIR No.322 dated 31.5.2012 under Section 379 IPC against unknown person. The opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 3.4.2013 on the false ground that the complainant has given the unused key of the motor-cycle. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,700/- as cost of motor-cycle, a sum of Rs.2,500/- on registration charges, a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dhanda Breeding Vs. Kuldeep Ahlawat etc.
..3…
2. Opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 25.4.2014.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 has appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. It is further alleged that notice was to be given in writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance but the complainant had failed to do so. On merits, it is contended that the complainant has not clarified in his complaint that in which capacity said Surender Kumar was using the motor-cycle. Even the complainant has not impleaded said Surender Kumar as party in this complaint. The complainant has submitted the unused key after rubbing the same to show this is used one key. But the key submitted by the complainant is quite new and unused. The complainant has not submitted the used key as such the opposite parties rightly declared the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’ in the absence of used key. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for.
Dhanda Breeding Vs. Kuldeep Ahlawat etc.
..4…
4. In evidence, the complainant has produced the affidavit of Sh. Dalbir Singh Chahal Ex. C-1, copy of authority letter Ex. C-2, copy of cash memo Ex. C-3, copy of chit Ex. C-4, copy of FIR Ex. C-5, copy of letter dated 28.1.2013 Ex. C-6, copy of document Ex. C-7, copy of letter dated 3.4.2013 Ex. C-8, copy of affidavit Ex. C-9, copy of order Ex. C-10 and copy of untraceable report Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Manoj Kumar Ex. OP-1, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-2, copy of instruction Ex. OP-3, copy of letter dated 3.4.2013 Ex. OP-4, copy of postal receipt Ex. OP-5, copy of claim intimation slip Ex. OP-6, copies of letter dated 14.2.2013 Ex. OP-7 and Ex. OP-8, copy of letter dated 18.1.2013 Ex. OP-9, copy of final report form Ex. OP-10 and copy of FIR Ex. OP-11 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The counsel for the complainant argued that complainant’s Firm has purchased one motor-cycle and the same was got insured from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. The complainant’s firm had purchased the motor-cycle in question for the use of its employees and all the employees time to time used to ply the same for the work of complainant’s firm. It is further argued that on 30.5.2012 one of the employee of complainant’s firm Surender Kumar after performing the work of the complainant’s firm parked the motor-cycle outside of the office. But after some time the said motor-cycle was not found there and the same was stolen by unknown person. In this regard, the matter was reported to the police
Dhanda Breeding Vs. Kuldeep Ahlawat etc.
..5…
and the police has lodged FIR bearing No.322 on 31.5.2012. The complainant has also informed the insurance company immediately and fulfilled all the formalities but the opposite party No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 3.4.2013 taking false ground. The counsel for complainant relied upon the case law titled as Future General India Insurance Company Vs. Satbir reported in CLT (2) 2016 page 434, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission Haryana has observed that ‘Insurance claim-theft of insured tractor-prompt FIR-delay of 66 days in intimation to insurance company-held-in the Circular Ref. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated September 20th,2011 issued by ‘IRDA, it has been mentioned that genuine claim should not be rejected on account of delay in information and that, insurer decision to reject a claim must be based on ‘sound logic’ and ‘valid grounds’-insurance company is liable to indemnity the loss suffered by the complainant’.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.2 argued that Sh. Surender Kumar on what capacity he was using the motor-cycle. It is further argued that as per 1 clause of the policy, the complainant is bound to inform the company immediately regarding the theft/occurrence of vehicle whereas in the present case the complainant has informed the company 2.6.2012. The counsel for opposite party No.2 further argued that the complainant has submitted the quite new and unused key after rubbing the same to the opposite party-company and as such the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim as ‘No Claim’ in the absence of used key.
Dhanda Breeding Vs. Kuldeep Ahlawat etc.
..6…
7. After hearing the counsel for both the parties there arise two points before us. The first objection of the opposite party is that the complainant has submitted the key quite new and unused after rubbing the same. There is no evidence produced on the file on behalf of opposite parties in this regard whether the key submitted by the complainant is new one or used one, so the plea taken by the opposite parties is not tenable. Besides this the opposite parties have not also filed to any affidavit of surveyor as well as surveyor report to establish for not providing the proper key. The second objection of the opposite parties is that the motor-cycle in question was stolen on 30.5.2012 and the complainant informed the company on 2.6.2012 whereas as per terms and conditions of the company, the complainant is bound to inform the company immediately.
8. It is not in dispute that vehicle was stolen on 30.5.2012 and FIR Ex. C-5 was lodged in the police station, City Jind on 31.5.2012 and the police also filed untraced report Ex. C-9 on 17.12.2012. The insurance company has failed to produce any evidence that the vehicle in question was not stolen. This Forum is of the view that indisputably the FIR was lodged with the police without any delay and the complainant informed the insurance company about the theft of his vehicle on 2.6.2015 i.e. after three days. Even otherwise, the Circular No. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/2016/09/2011 dated September, 20th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in information, and that, the insurer’s decision to
Dhanda Breeding Vs. Kuldeep Ahlawat etc.
..7…
reject the claim must be based on ‘sound logic’ and ‘valid grounds’. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymalshu International reported in 1979(4) SCC page 176 ‘held that the practice often adopted by the insurance companies of denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants’. In this case, although the insurance company has not taken the plea in written statement that the complainant informed regarding the theft on belated stage. Once the police has registered the FIR and submitted untraced report, the question of breach of trust by will not affect the right of the complainant who lost his motor-cycle.
9. In view of the facts discussed above and case law (Supra) as well as Circular of IRDA the insurance company cannot repudiated the bona-fide claim of technical ground like delay information and submission of required documents. The decision of insurer to reject the claim of claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good sprit of clause, without compromising of bad claims. Under these circumstances it is a great deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company for repudiating the claim of complainant on false ground. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed with cost directing the opposite party No.2 to pay the insured amount of Rs.41,000/-(Rs. forty one thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order. In case of failure, the opposite party No.2 will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 14.3.2014 till its realization. The opposite party No.2 will also pay a sum of Rs.2,200/-(Rs.two thousand and two hundred only) as assessed litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 20.5.2016
President,
Member Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind
Dhanda Breeding Vs. Kuldeep Ahlawat etc.
Present: Sh. P.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.
Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 20.5.2016 for orders.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
18.5.2016
Present: Sh. P.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.
Arguments heard. Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
20.5.2016
Ram Kumar Vs. UHBVNL etc.
Present: Sh. J.S. Dhull Adv. for DH.
Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for JDs.
This Forum has passed the order on 10.10.2012 and opposite parties were directed to provide the tube-well connection to the complainant on the basis of his turn. Inspite of the order, the respondents have not compliance the order of this Forum. Ultimately complainant has filed the execution application under section 27 for compliance of the respondent/SDO for appearance and stated with the statement that he will give the connection to the complainant within 7 days. After that he gave the copy of Service Connection Order dated 23.10.2013, the connection has been released to the complainant. But the DH stated that the Service Connection Order is false one, to seek the exact position of the tube-well whether tube-well in question is running on the spot or not. This Forum has sent the Local Commissioner Sh. Sushil Sharma Adv. he gave the report that connection of tube-well has been connected today itself i.e. 29.10.2013 in the presence of the Local Commissioner. Now complainant grievances is there the SDO has given the Service Connection Order is false one in view of the report of the Local Commissioner. The connection was connected on 29.10.2013 it means the Connection Order has not been released. In this way, the SDO failed to compliance the order of this Forum within stipulated period, it is necessary to send the show cause notice to the SDO to explain the position why he has placed on the record Service Connection Order dated 23.10.2013 whenever connection was released on 29.10.2013 as per Local Commission report. The SDO is directed to come present personally and explain the position. Show cause notice be issued to the SDO for this purpose. Now to come up on 1.6.2016 for presence of SDO as well as reply of the show cause notice.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
10.5.2016
No._______ Dated:________
From:
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jind.
To
The SDO,
UHBVNL Sub Division, Julana.
Sub: Show cause Notice in case titled Ram Kumar Vs. UHBVNL etc.
fixed for 1.6.2016.
Memo:
In the above noted case from the perusal of the case file it reveals that the connection of the DH was released on 29.10.2013 whereas you have placed on record service connection order dated 23.10.2013. You are hereby directed to appear in person on 1.6.2016 to explain the factual position issuance of service connection order dated 23.10.2013 as well as restoration of the electricity supply to the tube-well of the complainant on 29.10.2013.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jind.
