Haryana

Karnal

CC/664/2022

Mamta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Babita Rani

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.664 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.22.11.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 27.08.2024

 

Mamta wife of Shri Satyawan, resident of house no.216, Balmiki Basi, Model Town, Karnal. Aadhar no.2790 1762 2128. Mobile no.8059555152.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Ms. Babita Rani, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Sudarshan Patlan, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05BF-2332. The complainant got her motorcycle insured with the OP, vide policy no.39010231216200568585, valid from 13.10.2021 to 12.10.2026 and the value of the aforesaid motorcycle was assessed Rs.63,707/-. On 02.02.2022, Robin son of Shri Ravinder Kumar resident of Balmiki Basti, Karnal who is the nephew of the complainant had taken the aforesaid motorcycle for some urgent work and he had parked the same in front of Atal Park Karnal by putting the lock and went in Gym Khana Club for passing out the urine and after passing the urine when Robin came out, but not found the aforesaid motorcycle where he parked the same. Complainant informed the police and police lodged the FIR no.0087 dated 02.02.2022, Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal under section 379 of IPC regarding the theft of the aforesaid motorcycle. The Intimation was also given to the OP. Complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the required documents. The concerned police tried level best to search the said vehicle but could not succeed and thereafter the police has also submitted the untrace report before the Court of Shri Prateet Singh learned JMIC, Karnal vide order dated 02.05.2022. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP several times for settlement of the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly repudiated the claim of complainant, vide repudiation letter dated 01.07.2022 on the false and frivolous grounds. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and suppression of true and material facts; etc.  On merits, it is pleaded that at the time of theft, the vehicle in question was not parked at the proper place of parking, which act is against the terms of the policy in question. Beside this Robin who was driving the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving license and second key has also not been provided by the complainant to the OP. Even registered owner of vehicle is not having a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that complainant gave intimation to the OP on 08.02.2022 i.e. after six days from the date of theft of the vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that the complainant also failed to produce/submit the second original key of said vehicle and stated that same has been mis-placed somewhere qua which the complainant gave her affidavit on 10.02.2022 which act of the complainant is contravention of the terms of the policy. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP as the vehicle of the complainant has stolen due to gross negligence on the part of the complainant as well as Robin who was driving the vehicle in question without driving licence. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1/A, copy of FIR Ex.C1, copy of untrace report Ex.C2, copy of repudiation letter dated 01.07.2022 Ex.C3, copy of insurance policy Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 24.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence investigation report Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 19.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that during the subsistence of insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen. Intimation was given to police as well as to the OP.  FIR no.0087 dated 02.02.2022 was registered with the Police Station, Sector 32-33, Karnal. Complainant submitted the claim with the OP and completed all the required formalities for settlement of the claim but OP did not pay the claim amount and rejected the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 01.07.2022 on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the at the time of theft, the vehicle in question was not parked at the proper place of parking, who was driving the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving license and second key has also not been provided to the OP. Thus, the claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.63,707/-. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question could not be recovered and police submitted untrace report before the Illaqua Magistrate, Karnal.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letter Ex.C3 dated 01.07.2022 on the following grounds, which are reproduced as under:-

“After going through the above mentioned claim, it is observed that  your file will be closed on account of :

1. As mentioned that you have driven the vehicle without driving licence is gross negligence of IPC and M.V. Act.
2. As in your statement vehicle was parked at an unsafe and unsecure place, which is gross negligence and violation of terms and conditions of insurance.

Please explain within seven days either your claim has been treated as ‘No Claim.’

12.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the abovesaid ground. OP has alleged that at the time of accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. At the time of theft the vehicle in question was parked in front of Atal Park Karnal by putting the lock properly and was not plying. Hence, question for demanding the driving licence of driver does not arise at all. Hence the plea taken by the OP has no force.

13.     OP has further alleged that at the time of theft, the vehicle in question was not parked at the proper place of parking.  The vehicle in question was parked in front of Atal Park, Karnal, it cannot be alleged that said place was not proper for parking. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that a common person never wants to let his vehicle for damages or for stolen. Thus plea taken by the OP seems to be a concocted one and has been cooked up only in order to deprive the complainant from his genuine claim. Hence, this plea taken by the OP has no force at all.

14.           OP has further alleged that second key has not been provided to the OP. As per the version of the complainant, one original key has already been given to the surveyor of the OP and second key has already been misplaced and in this regard she has submitted affidavit to the surveyor of the OP. Surveyor of the OP has not denied that complainant has not submitted the affidavit. Hence, plea taken by the OP has no force.

15.           Furthermore, now a days it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and while giving claim amount, they make such type of excuses. Thus, the repudiation of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we relied upon the case law of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

16.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

17.           As per insurance policy Ex.C4/Ex.OP2, the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.63,707/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 18.          In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.63707/- (Rs.sixty three thousand seven hundred seven only) the IDV of the vehicle in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 22.11.2022 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to complete all the formalities with regard to transfer/cancel of the RC of the vehicle in question. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 27.08.2024   

                                                             President,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Commission, Karnal.

               

                        (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                            Member