The present complaint was filed by the titled complainant against the titled insurers upon closure/repudiation of his Insurance Theft-Claim by the OP insurers pertaining to his comprehensively insured (For an IDV of Rs.1.05 Lac) Hyundai Santro Car that was stolen on the morning of 24.11.2017 being parked outside his friend's house in Pathankot visited by him on the same morning.

2.       The Complainant had represented to the OP insurers many a times over the telephone as well as in writing and also through legal-notice warranting an expeditious review/resolve but somehow all that could not move the OP and hence prompted the present complaint.

3.       Sh. Rajinder Kumar a resident of Village: Gharota (Pathankot) had purchased the Second Hand Santro Car (Registration No. PB-18-Q-0082) from the then owner who had somehow given/ handed him over only one key of the Santro Car upon its purchase. The complainant after having got the Car transferred to his name had got it fully insured with the OP Insurers for an I.D.V of Rs.1,05,000/- vide the policy/cover note # 20112005031610 0041200000 valid w. e. from 27.02.2017 to 26.02.2018.

4.       Further, as ill-luck would have it, the insured Santro Car was stolen on the morning of 24.11.2017 while parked outside a friend's house (in Pathankot) having visited him on the same morning. The requisite FIR # 155 was duly filed with the P.S. Div. No. 2 Pathankot on 25.11.2017 U/s 379 IPC and the OP insurers were duly intimated, as requisite. In due course of time, its Untrace Report was also issued by the JMIC, Pathankot.

5.       The OP Insurers, in spite having all the requisite papers submitted to them and also having their queries satisfactorily replied moved ahead to repudiate the theft-claim though unceremoniously vide their letter dated 27.04.2019, hence the present complaint. 

6.       Presently, the complainant has sought directives to the OP insurers to honor his theft claim to the full I.D.V. Of Rs.105,000/- with interest @ 18% PA besides Rs.100,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation etc., all in the interest of justice and have produced the herein indicated documentary evidence in support of his claim. Complainant's Affidavit/deposition; along with other exhibited evidence/documents as: Ex.C1 (Copy of the R.C.); Ex.C2 (Copy of the Insurance Policy); Ex.C3 (Copy of the FIR); Ex.C4 (Copy of Untrace Report); Ex.C5 (Copy of Closure Letter); Ex.C6 (Legal Notice to the OP); Ex.C7 (Postal Receipts); Ex.C8 (Aadhar); Ex.C9 (Investigator Repot); Ex.C10 (Reminder); Ex.C11 (Details of Vehicle); Ex.C12 (R.C. Verification Report).                                   

7.       The titled OP Insurers (the OP1 & the OP2), in response to the commission’s notice/ summons appeared through their common counsel who filed their written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as: Firstly, the OP plead absence of cause of action and locus-standee with the complainant to file the present complaint. Next, the contract of insurance being based on utmost good faith binds both the parties to go by its terms and conditions and to exchange true and correct facts. The complainant has in spite of various reminders has failed to deliver/handover the duplicate original key of the Stolen Car and to provide the NEFT details of his Bank Account, the claim was closed. The OP insurers have simply reaffirmed their pleadings/objections in their written reply 'on merits' and have lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint being devoid of all merit. The herein OP produced documents provide support to the prosecution to the OP defense.    

8.       Affidavit (Ex.OP1,2/1/A) by Ashish Singh Tomar deposing contents of the written reply; All other letters as: Closure/Repudiation (Ex.OP1,2/1); Reminders (Ex.OP1,2/3 to Ex.OP1,2/8) Claim Form (Ex.OP1,2/12); Policy Certificate & Wording  (Ex.OP1,2/13 &14).       

9.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides, on points of law, and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care and caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We have been also inclined to examine the inference it’s ‘scope n spread’ on account of some documents ignored to be produced/ not-produced, during the course of present proceedings.

10.     We observe that the prime-points of contention between the herein litigants have been on the subject-matter/issue of 'non-handing' over of the duplicate key of the Stolen Car' and non-submission of the NEFT details of his Bank Account by the complainant to the OP insurers for an online-credit of the insurance claim. We find both these issues as too trivial to hold back an otherwise a genuine insurance claim. The complainant has very well explained that 'duplicate' car-key of the used-car was not delivered to him at the time of its purchase from previous owner and claim can be conveniently paid sans NEFT details.

11.     We do not see any merit and/or logic in these two OP objections rather these seem more like an escape/lame-excuse just to shrug off one's liability in one's determined endeavor to reject/close-down/repudiate an otherwise a valid theft claim. We see it as an employ of unfair trade practice clearly amounting to deficiency in service. Thus, we find that the OP insurers have for sure employed/ adopted unfair trade practice in their resolve of the theft claim and that has led to the impugned closure of the same.    

12.     We are of the considered opinion at the face of the evidenced-facts as available on the records that there’s have been an unfair display of its superior/dominant position by the OP Insurer in blacking-out the 'transparency' of claim-resolve from the insured and that clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the OP insurer's part and as such the impugned ‘repudiation’ on the OP insurer's part of the theft-claim, in question, had been unwarranted, arbitrary and unfair; neither in accordance with the provisions of the statutory law nor in conformity with the sanctity of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, the OP have violated with impunity the preferred consumer rights of the insured complainant causing him much physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss. Thus, we hold the OP insurers guilty of statutory misconduct amounting to ‘unfair trade practices/deficiency in service’ and thus liable to an adverse award under the provisions of the governing statute.

13.     In the light of the all above, we order the opposite party insurers to pay the impugned claim @ of the policy's full IDV of Rs.1.05 Lac with interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim (till paid in full) besides Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as cost cum compensation within 45 days of receipt of the  certified copy of these orders otherwise the so-aggregated amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3 % PA from the date of the orders till realization, in full.

14.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

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

 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                 President.

ANNOUNCED:                                  (B.S.Matharu)

JULY 07, 2022.                                          Member.

YP.