Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/273

Ram Atul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty General Insurnce Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rattan Singh Adv.

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 273 dated 29.10.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 01.12.2022.

 

Ram Atul S/o. Chokhe Lal, St. No.1, Sua Road, New Ram Nagar, Giaspura, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                       ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., Unit No.FF-4A, 1^st Floor, Eminent Mall Complex, 261, Lajpat Nagar, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001 through its Manager.
2. Novelty Wheels Pvt. Ltd., B-30 114/3/1, Adj. Bharat Petroleum Pump, Opp. G.S. Auto, Dhandari Khurd, G.T. Road, Ludhiana-141010 through its Manager.                                                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. M.P.S. Chahal, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Keshav Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Bolero Pickup van for self employment from opposite party No.2 vide invoice No.NWC/18-19/0471 dated 30.01.2019 for Rs.7,03,922/- (Anx. C1). The complainant got the said vehicle insured from opposite party No.1 vide policy No.201320050318800030900000 valid from 30.01.2019 to 29.01.2020 (Ann. C3). A temporary No.PB-10-TCD-0202 (Anx. C4) was issued o the vehicle at the time of its delivery. Thereafter, permanent registration No.PB-10-HA-9241 was allotted vide RC Annexure-C5. As per the complainant, the service was got done from opposite party No.2. On 09.04.2019, at about 03.00 PM, the vehicle was locked and parked in the street outside house of the complainant. However, on 10.04.2019 at about 05.00 AM, it was found to be stolen by some unknown person along with original documents and one key of the vehicle. Search was made to trace the vehicle by the complainant and finally the complainant gave information to the police at P.S. Sahnewal which lead to registration of FIR No.94 dated 13.04.2019 under Section 379 IPC (Later on offence U/s.201 IPC has been added) at Police Station Sahnewal (Anx. C6). On the same day i.e. 13.04.2019, the complainant also gave information to opposite party No.1 regarding the theft of the vehicle and lodged the claim with opposite party No.1. On 16.04.2019, opposite party No.1 acknowledged the intimation of claim through telephonic message (Anx. C7). It was also stated in the complaint that investigation of the FIR was also conducted by the police and arrested one Harjit Singh co-accused and also recorded his confession statement regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. During the investigation, offence under Section 201 IPC was added as the vehicle could not be recovered and after the completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana (Anx. C8) along with documents of recovery memo and disclosure statement, attached as Anx. C9 to Anx. C12 with the challan. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 to settle his claim as per insurance policy but opposite party No.1 demanded the untrace report before settling the claim. As the complainant has also supplied the copy of final report i.e. challan U/s.173 Cr.P.C. to opposite party No.1 but still the claim was not settled. The act and conduct of opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for direction to opposite party No.1 to make payment of Rs.7,03,922/- along with interest @24% per annum along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of physical and mental torture and agony as well as Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels. Both the opposite parties filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by opposite party No.1, it has admitted the factum of validity period of insured vehicle of the complainant. It was further stated that on the receipt of intimation regarding the theft of vehicle on 16.04.2019, the claim was duly registered and immediately appointed Capital Risk Management Co. Investigator to investigate the claim vide Anx. R2 and the information in this regard was also conveyed to the complainant by sending letter of appointment Anx.  R3 and letter Anx. R4. The investigator collected the claim form and other documents and submitted investigation report Anx. R5 on 20.05.2019. After submission of the report, opposite party No.1 applied its mind and vide letter dated 25.09.2019 called upon the complainant to submit the following documents:-  

A. Both original keys

B. Original RC

C. Court Final Report

D. Non Repo Letter/Loan Outstanding Statement.

The complainant did not respond to the reminders dated 25.09.2019 (Anx. R6), 08.11.2019 (Anx. R7), 02.03.2020 (Anx. R8) and        21.10.2020 (Anx. R9) and thereafter, due to non-submission of requisite documents the claim case was closed. Besides that the complaint was assailed on the ground of non-joinder of financer of the vehicle i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited as a party. Opposite party No.1 also took objection with regard to limitation, maintainability and territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. On merits, besides reiterating the aforesaid facts, opposite party No.1 has also stated that there is delay in intimating the claim to opposite party No.1 and to the police. Further there is prima facie breach of the condition of the policy. It is the admitted fact that at the time of theft, keys were also stolen showing that the complainant not acted like a prudent insurer and failed to safeguard is vehicle. Opposite party No.1 has also denied the other allegations made in the complaint and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Opposite party No.2 in its written statement had strongly objected in the preliminary objections regarding falsity of the complaint and impleading of opposite party No.2 as party by the complaint just to malign the repudiation of opposite party No.2. However, the factum of service of the vehicle done on 09.04.2019 was admitted. Rest of the averments made in the complaint has been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Shraddha Kinare, Corporate Legal Manager of opposite party No.1 along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R10 and closed the evidence. The counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted affidavit Ex. RZ of Sh. Gautam Sharma, the authorized representative of opposite party No.2 along with documents Ex. R1/A and Ex. R2/A and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, written statements, affidavits and annexed documents produced on record by the parties.

7.                The counsel for the complainant has contended that the procurement of the court final report is beyond the control of the complainant. The complainant got registered the FIR immediately and got registered a case and cooperated with the police in tracing the vehicle. The case of the FIR No.94 dated 13.04.2019 is still under trial and adding of section201 IPC clearly demonstrates non-recovery of the vehicle and fulfills the requirement of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 was required to take into consideration challan Anx. C8 along with its annexed documents.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.1 while contending has drawn attention of this Commission  to condition No.1 and condition No.4 of the policy and submitted that the complainant has not acted as prudent insurer and has violated the aforesaid conditions of the policy. It was further contended that the documents were repeatedly demanded from the complainant which shows the intent of opposite party to settle the claim but it is the act and conduct of the complainant which forced opposite party No.1 to close the claim of the complainant due to non submission of documents.

9.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record minutely.

10.              Opposite party No.1 insisted for the supply of following documents for the settlement of claim:-

A. Both original keys

B. Original RC

C. Court Final Report

D. Non Repo Letter/Loan Outstanding Statement.

In view of the above given set of circumstances, it is clear that accept the Non Repo Letter/Loan Outstanding Statement, the procurement of other documents is not within control of the complainant. Invoking of Section 201 of IPC could have been treated by opposite party No.1 as the compliance of requirement of final report regarding non-recovery of the insured vehicle. It was the duty of the opposite party to assess the loss even when the documents were submitted to them. The delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the documents cannot be made a sole ground to close the claim of the complainant. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical. In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

11.              The fact that the claim has not been repudiated and only the claim file has been closed, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to submit all the necessary available documents with the opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 shall consider to reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit all the necessary available documents with the opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 shall consider to reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The complaint as against opposite party No.2 being seller of the vehicle in question is, however, dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                                      Member                            President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Ram Atul Vs Liberty General Insurance Co.                             CC/20/273 

Present:       Sh. M.P.S. Chahal, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit all the necessary available documents with the opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 shall consider to reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The complaint as against opposite party No.2 being seller of the vehicle in question is, however, dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                                      Member                            President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.