BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 155 of 2017
Date of Institution : 11.7.2017
Date of Decision : 7.2.2019.
Raj Kumar, aged about 65 years son of Sh. Mangat Ram, caste Brahman, resident of 13154, near Bharat Sainik School, M.C. Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
The Branch Manager/ Officer Incharge, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance company Ltd. having its branch office situated at Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Arya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the registered owner of i20Car bearing registration No. HR20Z- 9370. That the complainant got insured his above said car with the op company against all risks including risk of theft etc. vide policy no.3362/01221277/000/00 dated 15.7.2016 effective for the period from 15.7.2016 to 14.7.2017. That on 4.1.2017 in the evening at 6.00 PM, the complainant and his family members had gone to Kaithal regarding their personal work and they had locked their house and returned on the next day i.e. on 5.1.2017. On return to home, they found that some locks of the house had been broken and the house hold items had been thrown within the house. On checking of the whole house, the complainant and his family members found that theft had been committed and the cash amount of about Rs.25,000/- and some gold ornaments kept in the temple and several other items were found missing. The glass of the car of complainant which was parked inside the house and the stereo and other items of the car were also found missing and some unknown persons had committed theft in the house. The matter was immediately reported to the local police and the police reached the spot and inspected the same and after due process and inspection of the spot, the police registered FIR No.14 dated 5.1.2017 under Sections 380, 457 IPC in police station City Sirsa on the application of complainant. It is further averred that when police visited the spot, the complainant could not come to know about the exact parts of the car which had been stolen and he did not know about the names of those parts. Thereafter, the complainant got the said car inspected from the Mechanic namely Sh. Ramanpreet Singh son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, resident of Begu, Sirsa in the presence of police. The said Mechanic on inspection of the car reported that steering is open, air bag and air bar module from steering is missing, the blower assembly goods of audio system (Konshal) has been broken, there are scratches on the dash board, engine cover has been broken, the battery was lying below, ECM was found missing from the vehicle. In this way, the inspection was made by the Mechanic under the supervision of the Investigating team of the police and separate statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and of above said mechanic were recorded by the police. That accordingly the op company was informed in this regard and the copies of the FIR etc. were submitted by complainant before the op company and requested for making payment of the claim amount. It is further averred that complainant had also produced the bills/ cash memo etc. in respect of the purchased parts of the car and of the repairing etc. i.e. Rs.3,42,115/- from Krishna Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa and Rs.12,000/- on account of labour etc. paid to R.S. Motors Garrage, Dabwali Road, Sirsa. That all relevant information and documents were provided to the op company as and when demanded by them. That op company has wrongly, falsely and in an arbitrary manner has declined and repudiated the claim of complainant vide repudiation letter which is wrong, illegal, against law and facts, malafide and the same is not speaking and detailed one and is liable to be set aside. It is relevant to mention here that claim no. ##3362316404 under RRL Mode has nothing to do with the present claim as the earlier claim is concerned with earlier occurrence and not with the present occurrence. It is further averred that op company has ignored the statement of complainant and Mechanic under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the same is a part of police proceedings and a case cannot be decided only on the basis of FIR. The proceedings of a case are started after lodging of the FIR and that the FIR is a beginning of the case and mere FIR is not itself a conclusive proof. The op company has mis-interpreted the legal and factual position while rejecting the claim of complainant. That despite several demands and requests of complainant, the op company refused to pay the amount of insurance to the complainant and now the op has refused to admit the claim of complainant about a week ago. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, mis joinder and non joinder of parties, estoppal and maintainability and that complainant has not suffered any monetary loss. It is further submitted that policy of insurance is void because it was obtained by non-disclosure of material facts or representation of fact which were falls in material particulars. That the complainant has not given an undertaking that they have not filed any other claim petition/ complaint in any other Court or Forum on the basis of same cause of action and that in case the complaint is accepted and the complainant is found to get compensation, then the complainant should not be granted interest more than 6% per annum in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Kaushamma Begum Versus New India Assurance Company Limited (2001 ACJ 427). On merits, it is submitted that complainant has filed the present complaint simply to grab compensation from the answering op as the claim of complainant has already been settled previously vide claim no.3362316404 in the month of October 2016 on restricted repair liability at Rs.1.20 lacs, under the same policy wherein the insurance company allowed air bag module and sensor and the complainant also issued consent letter, but the complainant with fraudulent intention filed this complaint in order to cheat the answering op. So, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation on a fake and fabricated story. The present claim no.3362329141 was repudiated vide letter dated 9.1.2017 on the ground that damages are old and arising in the previous claim no.3362316404, which was already paid to complainant in the month of October, 2016. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant is registered owner of I20 Car bearing registration No.HR20Z-9370 which was insured with the opposite party for the period 15.7.2016 to 14.7.2017. He has further contended that on 4.1.2017 in the evening at 6.00 P.M., the complainant and his family members had gone to Kaithal for personal work and when they returned on the next day they found that theft had been committed in their house and Glass, stereo and other items of the insured car which was parked in the house were found missing. Claim was lodged with the opposite party but however same has been arbitrarily and illegally repudiated by op on the ground that claim has already been given to the complainant whereas complainant never received any single penny against this claim. The repudiation of the claim of complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has strongly contended that claim of complainant has already been settled previously vide claim No.3362316404, as such he is not entitled to any compensation rather he has filed this complaint in order to cheat the op. He has further contended that the complainant has claimed the same damages in claim no.3362316404 in the month of October, 2016 on restricted repair liability at Rs.1.2 lacs under the same policy and the complainant also given the consent letter. So, the present complaint is not maintainable at all and is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. The complainant has further furnished affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep, HC No.86 as Ex.CW2/A in which he has specifically deposed that complainant Raj Kumar informed the police that on 4.1.2017 in the evening at 6.00 P.M., he and his family members had gone to Kaithal regarding their personal work and they had locked their house and they returned from there on the next day i.e. 5.1.2017 and on returning to home, they found that some locks of the house had been broken and the household items had been thrown within the house and on checking of the whole house, the complainant and his family members found that theft had been committed and cash amount of Rs.25,000/- and some gold ornaments kept in the Mandir and several other items were found missing. He has further deposed that he further told that Glass of the Car of complainant bearing No. HR 20 Z- 9370 which was parked inside the house and the stereo and other items of car were found missing and some unknown persons had committed the theft in the house. He has further deposed that inspection of the car for the stolen and damaged parts was held by Ramandeep Mechanic in his presence as well as in the presence of complainant. The deponent alongwith other police official reached the spot and inspected the same and after due process and inspection of the spot, the police registered FIR No.14 on 5.1.2017 under Sections 380, 457 IPC in Police Station City Sirsa on the application of complainant. The complainant has also furnished affidavit of Sh. Ramanpreet Singh Mechanic as Ex.CW3/A in which he has deposed that he is Mechanic by profession and running 777 Star Motors Garage at Begu Road, Sirsa and repairs all types of vehicles. On 5.1.2017, he inspected the Car of Sh. Raj Kumar bearing No. HR-20z-9370 i20 in the presence of Kuldeep HC No.86 and complainant and he reported that that on inspection it is found that steering is open, air bag and air bag module from steering is missing, blower assembly, audio system, gear has been broken, there are scratches on the board, engine cover has been broken, the battery was lying below, ECM was found missing from the vehicle. Further the complainant has furnished affidavit of Sh. Kamal Jain proprietor of Krishna Motors as Ex.CW4/A in which he has specifically deposed that complainant had purchased the parts of his car from the shop of deponent for the amount of Rs.3,42,115/- and he handed over the bill/ invoice No.1090 dated 15.3.2017 for the said amount. The complainant has also furnished affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh Mechanic as Ex.CW5/A in which he has deposed that he repaired the car of complainant and received Rs.12,000/- as labour charges from the complainant and he handed over the bill of Rs.12,000/- on 15.3.2017. The complainant has also furnished policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Ex.P1, standard form motor private car package policy Ex.P2, copy of handbook on motor insurance Ex.P3, photographs Ex.P4 to Ex.P9, copy of estimate of Rs.3,90,096/- Ex.P10, copy of bill of Krishana Motors Ex.P11, copy of bill of labour Ex.P12, copies of various e-mails Ex.P13 to Ex.P22 and copy of FIR Ex.P23.
9. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished affidavit of Sh. Vikash Goyal, Deputy Manager Claims as Ex.OW1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the written statement filed by opposite party.
10. The perusal of the written statement as well as affidavit of Sh. Vikash Goyal, Deputy Manager Claims of the opposite party reveals that op has taken the plea that claim of complainant has already been settled previously vide claim No.3362316404 in the month of October, 2016 on restricted repair liability at Rs.120 lacs under the same policy wherein the insurance company allowed air bag module and sensor and the complainant also issued consent letter but the complainant with fraudulent intention filed this complaint in order to cheat the answering op.
11. The perusal of the evidence of op further reveals that claim No.3362316404 lodged by complainant was settled in the month of October, 2016 whereas Ex.P16 reveals that claim No.3362329141 dated 7.1.2017 was lodged with the op qua stolen articles of the car in question. So it appears that claim numbers as well as date of lodging of the claims are quite different from each other. The op has alleged payment of claim of Rs.1.20 lacs which has been allegedly paid by op in the month of October, 2016 whereas in the present case theft took place in the evening of 4.1.2017 and FIR No.14 was lodged on 5.1.2017 and thereafter claim was lodged on 7.1.2017 meaning thereby that op has never settled and paid claim which was lodged by complainant on 7.1.2017 vide claim no.3362329141.
12. The perusal of the evidence of op further reveals that op has furnished only affidavit of Sh. Vikash Goyal, Deputy Manager Claims and has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that payment of present claim which was lodged by complainant qua stolen articles of the insured car which he had purchased at the costs of Rs.3,42,115/- and Rs.12,000/- on account of repair charges paid to the mechanic Sh. Ranjit Singh has been made.
13. So, it appears from the evidence of the opposite party that op has arbitrarily and illegally under mistaken view has repudiated the claim of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op as op was under legal obligation to settle and pay the claim of complainant qua stolen articles of the car and damage of car and its repair charges. The complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.P11 which proves that complainant has purchased articles at the costs of Rs.3,42,115/- and this fact also finds corroboration from the affidavit Ex.CW4/A of Sh. Kamal Jain, Proprietor of Krishna Motors, Dabwali road, Sirsa. The complainant has also placed on record copy of bill of Rs.12,000/- Ex.P12 which proves that complainant spent the said amount of Rs.12,000/- as labour charges on account of repair of the car.
14. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,42,115/- as costs of the parts purchased by complainant and further to pay Rs.12,000/- as repair charges to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the total amount of Rs.3,54,115/- from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the opposite party to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within abovesaid period of 30 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:7.2.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
