District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 509/2021.
Date of Institution:29.09.2021.
Date of Order:11.04.2023.
Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Gopal Dass R/o Brahman Mohalla, Nakanpur, Tesh Punahana, Distt. Nuh.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., having its branch office at 803A, 8th floor Konenectus Tower, Toer-3 Opp. New Delhi Railway station Bhav Bhuti Marg, New Delhi through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited Local Office at: 5C/1-2, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad through its Divisional/Branch Manager.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Bal Kishan, counsel for the complainant.
Sh Anuj Gupta , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of a motor cycle marka C.D. Delux bearing its Regd. No. HR-93/2667 and the complainant got insured his motor cycle from the opposite party vide its policy No. 39010231186201570190 valid from 13.08.2018 to 12.08.2019 and the complainant had paid own damage premium computation which was mentioned in Column A sited in the policy document as well as also paid liability premium computation which was mentioned in the column B of the policy. On 30.12.2018 at about 9 O’clock , the complainant had visited the shop of Ravi Kumar Plywood Nanakpur to purchase some goods and the complainant parked his motor cycle in front of shop of Ravi Kumar and when the complainant returned back after 10 minutes then the complainant saw that the motor cycle in question mentioned above had stolen someone. The complainant tried to search the same on his level but could not succeed. The complainant moved an application to the police of P.P. Punahana against the unknown person on account of theft of the motor cycle in question, upon which a Formal FIR NO. 0008 dated 07.01.2019 u/s 379 IPC was got lodged in police of P.s.Punahana and concerned police submitted the final report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. before the Illaqua Magistrate. The complainant intimated of this incident to the opposite party at the time of alleged occurrence and the complainant had also submitted a claim form and submitted all the required documents for seeking the compensation on account of theft of motor cycle in question but the opposite party issued a letter dated 16.08.2019 upon the complainant and refused to make the claim of compensation amount due to delay in intimating the loss of the company as well as the police authorities, however the complainant had proceeded all the proceedings on time regarding to seek the
compensation amount on account of theft of motor cycle in question but despite of that the opposite party refused to settle the claim of compensation in favour of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 08.01.2020 to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) condone the delay of filing the present complaint in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
b) make the IDV value of Rs.31,466/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.
c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) any other relief deems fit and proper in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had got no locus standi & cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant was stopped by his own acts, conduct, acquisance, admission, commission and waiver from filing the present complaint. It was pertinent to mention that the FIR was lodge don 07.01.2019 wherein alleging theft of motor cycle No. HR-93/2667 on 30.12.2018, which amply proved on record that the complainant had failed to get lodged the FIR immediately of the alleged occurrence of theft and the complainant had also failed to intimate the insurance company immediately on the alleged occurrence of theft since the complainant intimated the opposite party No.1 office by submitted claim form on 20.02.2019, in this way FIR was lodged after 8 days and intimation to the answering opposite
party was given by the complainant after 52 days, resultantly violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy so issued in this behalf. It was quite clear from the contents of FIR, that motorcycle was left un-attended, without any proper safeguard. From all these facts, it was crystal clear that the complainant had not properly safeguarded the vehicle as he was required to do under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In these circumstances, the claim was not payable and the same was rightly rejected. The complainant was stopped by his own acts, conduct, acquiensce, commission and waiver from filing the present complaint. The complainant had suppressed and concealed true and material facts from the Hon’ble Commission such as:-
i) The answering opposite party appointed M/s. Vigilant Investigations, investigator to investigate claim, he contacted complainant and obtain few documents provided by the insured, thereafter investigator had issued 2 reminder letter dated 02.04.2019 & 15.06.2019 to the complainant requiring him to submit document such as:
a) Copy of FIR duly attested by police.
b) Final report duly attested by police
c) Copy of police intimation of stolen vehicle duly signed & stamped
d) Vehicle particulars from Authority.
e) Intimation to authority.
f) Purchase invoice.
g) Last service record.
ii) The answering opposite party vide letter dated 18.07.2019 requested
the complainant to submit below mentioned document sot enable answering opposite party to finalize claim:-
a) Proof of timely intimation to the police or 100 no. call report from police.
b) certified FIR & final report copy
c) All the original keys of the vehicle required. Only one original key provided to us & the 2nd key submitted is a duplicate one
d) Proof of existence of vehicle prior to the theft such as service bill/PUC/parking receipt etc. required.
e) Self attested copy of the insured
f) Acknowledged copy of safe custody letter to RTO and vehicle particulars form the RTO concerned.
The complainant was also requested to explain alongwith documentary proof why the subject claim should not be repudiated as there was an inordinate delay in intimating the loss to the company as well as to the police authorities. But again complainant for the reason best known to him adamant in not supplying and not cooperating in investigation of claim, whereas under the terms and conditions of the policy he was duty bound to give his full co-operation and co-operate in investigation of the claim of the theft.
iii) Therefore, answering opposite party was left with no other option except to close the claim file of his client treating the same as NO Claim for the reason, No response and informed complainant in this regard vide letter dated 16.08.2019. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – National Insurance Company Limited with the prayer to: a) condone the delay of filing the present complaint in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. b) make the IDV value of Rs.31,466/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) any other relief deems fit and proper in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Kanahiya Lal, Annx.C-1 – 64 V.B. Enquiry details,, Annx.C2 – tax invoice,, Annx.C-3 – driving licence, Annx.C4 – adhaar card, Annx.C-5 – Intimation of accident, Annx.C-6 – letter dated 31.12.2018, Annx.C-7 – FIR,, Annx.C-8 – antim report, Annx.C-9 - repudiation letter dated 16.08.2019, Annxc.C-10 – legal notice, Annx.C-11 – postal receipt, Annx.C-12 – insurance policy,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Mrs. Kavita Yadav, Duly Constitute Attorney of National Insurance Co. Ltd. D.O.II, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.R1 - Motor Bima Dawa Patar,, Ex.R-2 – reminder letter dated 02.04.2019, Ex.R-3 – reminder letter dated 15.06.2019, Ex.R4 – letter dated 18.07.2019 regarding submission of documents,
Ex.R-5 - repudiation letter dated 16.08.2019, Ex.R-6 - policy, Ex.R-7 – conditions.
6. In this case,, the complainant was the owner of a motor cycle marka C.D. Delux bearing its Regd. No. HR-93/2667 and the complainant insured his motor cycle from the opposite party vide bearing policy No. 39010231186201570190 valid from 13.08.2018 to 12.08.2019 for the insured value of Rs.31,466/-. On 30.12.2018 at about 9 O’clock , the complainant had visited the shop of Ravi Kumar Plywood Nanakpur to purchase some goods and the complainant parked his motor cycle in front of shop of Ravi Kumar and when the complainant returned back after 10 minutes then the complainant saw that the motor cycle in question mentioned above had stolen someone. The complainant tried to search the same on his level but could not succeed. FIR No. 0008 dated 07.01.2019 u/s 379 IPC was lodged in police of P.S.Punahana and concerned police submitted the final report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. before the Illaqua Magistrate. As per Ex.R-5, opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16.08.2019 on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of 52 days in intimating to the company and the FIR was lodge don 07.01.2019 i.e after an inordinate delay of 08 days which contributes to gross violation of policy No.1.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
8. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance
company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 25%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
9. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
IDV value of vehicle : Rs.31,466.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.,30,466.00
Deduction 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 7,616.50
Total : Rs. 22,849.50
10. The opposite parties, jointly & severally are directed to pay Rs. 22,849.50/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, subject to submission of documents as required by the opposite parties. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 11.04.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
