District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 562/2019.
Date of Institution:21.11.2019.
Date of Order:19.04.2023
Manoj Chaudhary son of Shri Ram Prakash R/o House No. 306/33, Ground Floor, I.P.Colony, Sector-33, Faridabad Tehsil & District Faridabad (Haryana).
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301-308, 3rd floor Aggrwal Prestie Mall, Plot No.2, road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh Pitampura New Delhi – 110 034 through its Manager.
…Opposite party
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: Mohd. Nafeses Khan , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Dabaas , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of the motorcycle Royal Enfield bearing its registration No. HR-51BU-2552, chassis No. ME3U3S5C1JF748090, Model 6/2018 which was registered in the office of Registering Authority, SDM Faridabad. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party company vide insurance policy NO. 0146657884 valid w.e.f. 28.08.2018 to 27.06.2019 for the total insured amount of Rs.1,40,647/- accordingly. On 25.06.2019 at about 7.00p.m. the complainant parked motorcycle Royal Enfield No. HR-51BU-2552 in front of main gate of his house in locked condition. On the next day morning when the complainant saw then motorcycle Royal Enfield No. HR-51BU-2552 was not present there. Thereafter searched his motorcycle here and there but could not trace out the said motorcycle and meantime the complainant went outside Faridabad for his urgent work. The complainant came to know that some unknown thief had stolen his motorcycle. The complainant came to know that some unknown thief had stolen his motorcycle. When the complainant returned to Faridabad on 05.07.2019 then the complainant reported the matter to the police of the Police Station, sector-31, Faridabad thereby requesting to take action against the unknown person and to trace out the motorcycle. The said police investigated the matter and made enquiry into the matter and thereafter the police of the Police Station, Sector-31, Faridabad lodged the FIR No.288 dated 05.07.2019 under section 379 IPC regarding the theft of motorcycle in question in the Police Station, Sector-31, Faridabad. At the time of theft of the said motorcycle the complainant forgotten the name of the insurance company so the complainant could not inform the opposite party immediately and on 06.07.2019 when the complainant came to know about the name of opposite party then the complainant intimated the opposite party regarding theft of the said motorcycle. Thereafter the surveyor of the opposite party visited the spot and taken photographs, relevant documents/papers as well as copy of the FIR form the complainant. The police of Police Station, sector-31, Faridabad submitted the untraced report regarding the said motorcycle before the court of Ms. Shivani, JMIC, Faridabad on dated 10.10.2019. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party and also supplied all the documents and the opposite party allotted the claim No. 0821560150A on 13.07.2019 and the opposite party assured to reimburse insured amount of Rs.1,40,647/- to the complainant after completing some formalities. After submitting the above said documents the opposite party sent the letter dated 18th September 2019 thereby asking the reason for delay of 9 days. Thereafter the complainant had clarified of delay of 9 days of lodging the FIR and reason through email dated 26th September 2019. On 01.11.2019 the opposite party had rejected the claim of the complainant by mentioning that they regret that they were unable to entertain this claim mentioned in the reason 1 – the FIR was registered with a delay of 9 days from the date of theft and no legitimate explanation given for such delay and second reason was told that the complainant had not dialed at 100 number to the police against the theft of the vehicle and the opposite party had assumed that this was the violation of condition of policy. Whereas, it was submitted that the complainant had already made explanation through email to the opposite party that after theft he went out of station due to the urgent work and returned on 05.07.2019 and immediately informed to the police. The complainant also submitted the journey ticket of that period as he was out of station. Thus there was no violation on the part of the complainant intentionally and deliberately hence the opposite party were legally bound to reimburse the amount of Rs.1,40,647/- as insured amount of stolen vehicle to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) make the payment of Rs.1,40,647/- as insured amount of the stolen motorcycle alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till realization to the complainant immediately.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was not maintainable since immediately on the receipt of the claim on 06.06.2019 i.e. 11 days after the alleged loss, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. During processing, the answering opposite party appointed an independent investigator, M/s. Globe Claims investigation agency to investigate the loss. During investigations, it was noted that the intimation of alleged loss was given to the police after a gap of 10 days which stand in violation of insurance policy condition NO.1. The present application was bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, It was submitted that as per the registration certificate & motor insurance policy, Motor Cycle No. HR-51BU-2552 was hypothecated with HDFC Bank but the said financer had not been impleaded in the present proceedings at the end of the complainant. It was further submitted that as per the provisions of the law in force, the terms & conditions of the insurance policy as well as the statutory guidelines laid down by the Insurance Regularly Development Authroity , the claim amount, if payable, should be released to the financer. The complainant neither had any cause of action nor locus standi in lodging of the present complaint before this Commission, reason being, there had been inordinate delay 11 days in intimating the insurance company & 10 days in intimating the police with regards to the alleged theft of motor cycle No. HR-51BU-2552, which intimation as firstly received by the insurance company on 06.07.2019, wherein, alleging theft of motor cycle on 25/26.06.2019. Since, such delayed intimation of alleged loss to police and to insurer constitute violation of terms & conditions Nos.1 & 8 of the insurance policy, hence the insurance company had arrived at the decision in treating such claim as “Repudiated” vide letter of intimation dated 26.12.2017, in continuation of letter dated 18.09.2019, so sent under registered post, which decision cannot be termed unconscionable at all. In response to insurance company’s letter dated 18.09.2019, the complainant had forwarded his version, so as at explain the delay in lodging FIR & intimating the insurance company vide email dated 26.09.2019 but the insurance had not found the same as satisfactory thus repudiated the said claim as such. 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 party–M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) make the payment of Rs.1,40,647/- as insured amount of the stolen motorcycle alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till realization to the complainant immediately. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Manoj Chaudhary, Mark-A – RC, Mark-B – insurance policy, Ex.C-1 – FIR, Ex.C-2 – Antim Report, Ex.C-3 – letter, Ex.C-4 – letter dated 18.09.2019,, Ex.C-5 – email dated 26.09.2019,, Ex.C-6 – letter dated 01.11.2019, ex.C-7 – journey ticket,, Mark-D - Adhaar card,.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Amit Chawla, AVP (Legal Claims) , Ex.C-1 – registration certificate,, Ex.R-2 – Vehicle particulars (for Internal Use), Ex.R-3 – insurance policy, Ex.R-4 – FIR, Ex.R-5 – Intimation cum preliminary claim form, Ex.R-6 - letter dated 16.07.2019 to MLO, Regional Transport Authority,, Ex.R-7 – investigation report, Ex.R-8 – letter, Ex.R-9 - letter dated 18.09.2019,, Ex.R-10 – email, Ex.R-11 – No Claim letter dated 01.11.2019.
6. In this case, the complainant was the registered owner of the motorcycle Royal Enfield bearing its registration No. HR-51BU-2552, chassis No. ME3U3S5C1JF748090, Model . The vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 0146657884 valid w.e.f. 28.08.2018 to 27.06.2019 for the total insured amount of Rs.1,40,647/-. On 25.06.2019 at about 7.00p.m. the complainant parked motorcycle Royal Enfield No. HR-51BU-2552 in front of main gate of his house in locked condition. On the next day morning when the complainant saw then motorcycle Royal Enfield No. HR-51BU-2552 was not present there. Thereafter searched his motorcycle here and there but could not trace out the said motorcycle and meantime the complainant went outside Faridabad for his urgent work. The complainant came to know that some unknown thief had stolen his motorcycle. The complainant came to know that some unknown thief had stolen his motorcycle. When the complainant returned to Faridabad on 05.07.2019 then the complainant reported the matter to the police of the Police Station, sector-31, Faridabad thereby requesting to take action against the unknown person and to trace out the motorcycle. The said police investigated the matter and made enquiry into the matter and thereafter the police of the Police Station, Sector-31, Faridabad lodged the FIR No.288 dated 05.07.2019 under section 379 IPC regarding the theft of motorcycle in question in the Police Station, Sector-31, Faridabad. Opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 01.11.2019 (Ex.R-11) on the ground that(1) Claim vehicle FIR was registered with delay of 09 days dated 05.07.2019 from the date of theft dated 26.06.2019. No legitimate explanation given for such delay. (2) You also confirmed in your written statement that 100 no. call not made against theft of
vehicle & dated 05.07.2019 you visited the concern police station & lodged the FIR.
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.1,40,647.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.,1,39,647.00
Deduction 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 34,911.75
Total : Rs. 1,04,735.25
10. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,04,735.25/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. 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: 19.04.2023 (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.
