Haryana

StateCommission

CC/157/2018

AJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BALJEET BENIWAL

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.157 of  2018

Date of the Institution:16.03.2018

Date of Decision: 25.02.2019

 

Ajit Singh aged about 32 years s/o Sh. Sh.Narayan Singh proprietor of M/s Shiv Ram Narayan Singh Shop No.48, New Sabzi Mandi, Hodal, Distt. Palwal (Haryana).

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301-308, 3^rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034, through its Divisional Manager/Principle Officer.

2.      M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited near Green Chanel, Sector-16, Faridabad through its Branch Manager/Principle Officer.

…..Contesting Respondents

3.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited having its office at 1^st Floor, 6 Vaishali Enclave, Adjoining Gulab Sweets, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.

                                                .….Proforma Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.

Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2.

(Opposite party No.3 already given up vide order dated 05^th September, 2018).

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was registered owner of vehicle bearing No. HR 73-2114 and the same was comprehensively insured w.e.f. 18.07.2013 to 17.07.2013 for Rs. 19,53,000/- with the O.Ps.  On 09.08.2013, the vehicle was stolen by some unknown person.  FIR bearing No.239 dated 14.08.2013 was registered.  Intimation was also given to the insurance company.  Claim was filed by the complainant, which was rejected by the opposite parties vide letter dated 07.05.2014.  Legal notice was also sent to the O.Ps., but, to no avail.

2.      Notice being issued, opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 contested the claim with the averments that the vehicle in question was a commercial one and the same has been brought by the complainant for doing the commercial activities and as such the complainant was not a consumer as defined the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On receipt of intimation of theft of the vehicle, surveyor was appointed, who investigated the complainant as well as site and found that the complainant was not paying the installments of the loan for the insured vehicle since 1^st May 2013.  The complainant did not cooperate with the surveyor.  The insurance company raised a few questions with regard to one start switch key and two cabin lock keys submitted by the complainant.  the switch key given by the complainant was of brand name Minda and it was pointed out to the complainant that Minda brand key was not supplied with said model of the truck. The complaint was also pre-mature as the complainant has not replied the show cause notices dated 04.04.2014 and 07.05.2014.  The O.P Nos.1 and 2 has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. Preliminary objections about the, no locus standi, pecuniary jurisdiction, complainant was not a consumer, complaint was premature etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit of Ajit Singh as Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

4.      On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. had also tendered the affidavit Ex.RA that of Mr. Rahul Adaiwal Associate Vice President, Ex.RB that of Mr. Vikas Kumar and also tendered documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed his evidence.

5.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Baljeet Beniwal, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire records as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the prosecution of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                It is a case of theft of vehicle, insured by the insurance company and in case of the theft of the vehicle, the complainant has been indemnified the assured amount by allowing his complaint.    However, in the present case, the insurer has taken a stand that a original keys have not been produced by the complainant inspite of making repeated requests, the claim has been dis-allowed. In this regard, it is suffice to say that the proper action has been taken on the part of the complainant to lodge the FIR.  Registration certificate and insurance policy  Ex.C-1 and C-2 respectively are on the record, it is also admitted facts that the vehicle is comprehensively insured w.e.f. 18.07.2013 to 17.07.2014 and the intimation with regard to the theft was given immediately.  When the police was immediately informed, the intimation was also given to the insurer themselves and now it is for the investigating agency to take appropriate steps to recover the stolen vehicle, but, once it is not recovered for none of the fault of the complainant, he can be deprived his one valuable rights of the claim to the extent of the assured amount.

7.                Hence, the ground of repudiation is of non production of fees etc. are not the material grounds to decline the genuine claim of the complainant.  Hence, the repudiation letter vide which the claim was declined, stands quashed for all intents and purposes. The complaint is allowed and the O.Ps. are directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle  i.e. Rs.19,53,000/-  to the complainant  alongwith the interest @ 9% p.a from the date of lodging the claim, till realization. In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of three months, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period.   In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.21,000/-  as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

February  25th, 2019                                                 Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.