District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.185/2021.
Date of Institution: 30.03.2021.
Date of Order: 14.10.2022.
Gopal Singh aged about 35 years S/o Shri Gajender Singh R/o village Dulhepur (Snahupur Khadar), Post Chandpur, Sub Tehsil Mohna, District Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Policy issuing Office: (Faridabad Branch, SCF-2, Ist floor, Ashoka Enclave-1, Sector-35, Faridabad – 121003 through its Divisional Manager/Authorized Signatory.
Service also effected at:
M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registereda office: Unit NO. 401, 4th floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 through its Director/principal Officer.
…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. G.S.Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Nitish Kumar, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle (TATA LPT – 2515) bearing its registration No. HR-55-G-7480 having its engine No. 91452080A62643736 model June/2008. The above said vehicle got insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy NO. 2315/58638590/00/000 which was valid from 29.06.2018 to 28.06.2019, sum assured Rs.6,50,000/- at the time of getting insurance, the opposite party assured to the complainant, the said vehicle was covering the risk of theft, damage, accident etc. The complainant had paid the premium of the said policy. The said vehicle as the only source of livelihood for the complainant as defined u/s 2(7)(ii)(a) of the Act. On 12.04.2019 the complainant as usual/routine parked his aforesaid vehicle in the night near Kisan Kalka Seva Kendra Petrol Pump, Village Chhainsa, District Faridabad with proper lock and in the morning of 13.04.2019 the complainant visited the spot where he parked the said vehicle, but he found missing and he tried to search the said vehicle but the same could not be found. Thereafter, the complainant informed the police about the theft of the vehicle and thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the police of P.S.Chhainsa and the police reported the matter vide FIR No. 76 dated 17.04.2019 u/s 379 IPC at P.S.Chhainsa, Faridabad. The complainant also informed the opposite party in this regard and lodged his claim and the opposite party appointed M/s. Bhola & associates as investigator and the said investigator demanded certain documents and the complainant submitted all requisite documents to the said investigator. The police also filed untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. before the Illaka Magistrate on 30.09.2019 and a copy of the same was also issued to the complainant and the
complainant supplied the same to the opposite party. At that time, the representative/executive of the opposite party assured that after some enquiries/formalities, the insurance company should disburse the claimed amount shortly. On one hand, the opposite party withhold the claimed amount of the said vehicle and on the other hand, the finance company had been pressurizing and demanding the financed amount form the complainant and also threatened that the said finance company should initiate legal proceedings against the complainant for recovery of the balance finance amount. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to disburse the claimed amount, but the officials of the opposite party always avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and did not disburse the claimed amount to the complainant till date. The complainant sent legal notice dated 17.02.201.to the opposite party 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 party to:
a) pay the insured amount of Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its lost/theft till its realization
b) pay loss of income from the date of theft till actual realization of the claimed amount to the complainant..
c) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-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 complainant obtained the insurance of the vehicle at a higher IDV as the complainant had bought the said vehicle at Rs.4,20,000/- from the previous owner.
It was submitted that the complainant had delayed in forming the opposite party company by 2 days and in lodging of FIR 4 days. Opposite party had rightly refused the claim of the complainant as the complainant had delayed in informing the opposite party by two day and in lodging of FIR by 4 days, which violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the opposite party was not liable to pay any claim. Opposite party had rightly refused the claim of the complainant as the complainant did not co-operate with the surveyor appointed by the opposite party. The surveyor had sent them 3 reminders, however, the complainant failed to co-operate in the said investigation being conducted by the surveyor. 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. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) pay the insured amount of Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its lost/theft till its realization b) pay loss of income from the date of theft till actual realization of the claimed amount to the complainant. c) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Gopal Singh, Ex.C1 – RC,, Ex.C-2 – Endorsement Schedule of Motor-Goods Carrying vehicle,, Ex.C-3 – FIR,, Ex.C-4 – Vehicle
Particulars (For Internal use), Ex.C-5 – State Transport Department RTA, Gurgaon, Ex,C-6 – Authorization certificate of N.P.Goods, Ex.C-7 – consignment note, Ex.C-8 – Form N.P.Pu.C, part A, Ex.C-8 – Form N.P.Pu.C Part B,, Ex.C-10 – pollution certificate,, Ex.C-11 – letter dated 20.04.2019 regarding required the documents,, Ex.C-12 – untraced report,, Ex.C-13 – legal notice,, Ex.C-14 & 15 – postal receipts,
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 Prashant V Shukla, S/o Vinod Shukla, Office at Unit 601 & 602 Reliable Tech Park, Airoli,, Annexure R1 – Investigation report,
6. It is evident from investigation report vide Annexure R1 that the said vehicle was was purchased by the insured for Rs.4,20,000/- however the insurance coverage was obtained for Rs.6,50,000/- which confirms that insurance coverage was obtained by insured at higher IDV.In the interest of justice, the complaint is allowed on non standard basis because after so many letters written by the investigators to the complainant regarding supply the required documents as mentioned in Investigation report dated 11.10.2021 and the claim lodged by the complainant was closed by opposite party vide letter dated 05.10.2019. Occurrence of theft is almost 2 years back. There is violations of condition No.1 also in this case.
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.4,20,000.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs. 4,19,000.00
Deduction 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 1,04,750.00
Total : Rs. 3,14,250.00
11 The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 3,14,250/- 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 35A. 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: 14.10.2022. (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.
