BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.164 of 2021
Date of Instt. 20.04.2021
Date of Decision: 16.03.2023
Baljinder Singh (aged about 46 years) S/o S. Chain Singh R/o Village Bhardwajian, PO. Bundala, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Future Generalli India Insurance Company Limited situated at SCO 5 & 6, 3rd Floor, PUDA Complex, Court Road, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. Karan Kumar, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had insured his car bearing No.PB-02- BX-3517 from the OP vide policy No.2019-V6092877-FPV for the period starting from 28-01-2019 to 27-01-2020 by paying a sum of Rs.19,291.00. As per the insurance policy, Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.7,67,125.00 excluding value for Non Electric Accessories. Side car, Electric Accessories and Bi-Fuel Kit and the OP, being the insurance company was bound to pay the IDV to the complainant in the event of total loss/theft of the insured vehicle. Unfortunately on 08-12-2019, the aforesaid car of the complainant was stolen from District Sangrur while it was being used by the complainant's friend namely Balwinder Singh son of Surat Singh resident of Village Dhar-Ki-Ber, P.O Dharampur, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Regarding which intimation was given to the local police, on the basis of which FIR No.09 dated:10-01-2020, U/s 379 IPC, wan got registered at PS City Sangrur, District Sangrur. It is pertinent to mention here that after theft of the vehicle, the complainant immediately approached the OP through his insurance agent on 09-12-2019 for lodging the claim, however, the staff of the OP refused to lodge the claim for want of FIR Thereafter, the complainant kept on visiting the concerned police station for registration of FIR, which was ultimately registered on 10-01-2020 after conducting preliminary inquiry and thereby caused delay of about one month in registration of FIR. Thereafter, again the intimation was given to the OP but no claim number was provided to the complainant. In this way, the delay in lodging the claim with the OP was not due to negligence of the complainant, but on account of tactful refusal by the OP with mala-fide intention to repudiate the claim thereof. The OP served an envelope containing two ante-dated letters both of dated: 10-11-2019 respectively (one was original letter and another was shown as 'reminder letter) showing claim number as CM1780 39 and demanded documents mentioned therein including Final untraced report U/s 173 Cr. P.C, followed by visit of surveyor namely Mr. Shubham Arora appointed by OP. All the requisite documents were provided to the OP through aforesaid surveyor, except final untraced report but no acknowledgement was provided in this regard. Thereafter on 12-06-2020, the complainant again received an envelope containing two letters both of dated:04-06-2020 respectively (one was shown as 'initial letter' and another was shown as 'delay in intimation’) showing Claim number as 1239879 and demanded some additional documents mentioned therein. All the requisite documents were provided to the OP in two phases by submitting the same in branch itself, but here again no acknowledgement was provided thereof. Despite submitting all the requisite documents including final untraced report, the OP kept mum in passing the claim. Having no other option, the complainant personally visited the office of OP and requested the Staff to pass the claim, but the Staff after checking from their online record confirmed that the claim of the complainant was rejected due to delay in lodging intimation to the insurance company. However, the OP has not provided any document/letter qua the refusal of the claim. It is to be noted here that the complainant tried to check the claim status on the official website of OP but despite number of attempts no status of the claim could be find out. The complainant captured the screenshots in this regard which are on record. Thus it amounts to deemed refusal of the claim by the OP in violation of the terms of policy for which the OP charged a sum of Rs.19,291.00 from the complainant. The aforesaid acts of OP are nothing else but clear-cut negligence on its part in providing services to the complainant and it also amounts to deceptive, restrictive and unfair trade practices, for which the OP is liable and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pass an award equal to the IDV i.e. Rs.7,67,125/- alongwith interest @ 2% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till its realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and cost of litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on merits or as per law and is liable to be out rightly dismissed. At the very outset it is submitted that the contents of the Complaint wholly misconceived, vexatious, frivolous and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Commission. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering OP and hence, the present Complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed in with exemplary costs thereto. It is further averred that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product ‘Future Secure Motor Insurance Policy’ has submitted duly signed proposal form and offered to pay Rs.19,291/-, inclusive of tax as total premium amount. The answering OP evaluated and processed the Proposal Form on the basis of information furnished by the complainant and issued the Policy bearing No. 2019-V6092877-FPV for Mahindra and Mahindra Scorpio SLE BS IV vide Registration No.PB02BX3517 with effective date from 28.01.2019 valid upto 27.01.2020. The insured vehicle was stolen on 08.12.2019 from Sangrur near Government Ranbir College. The alleged Insured Vehicle was being driven by Mr. Balwinder Singh, who is a friend/relative of the Insured Mr. Baljinder Singh, the Complainant. That, as alleged by the Complainant in his statement that the Insured vehicle was driven by abovementioned Driver from Solan to Sangrur, where the alleged Vehicle encountered some problem and could not start. Since the Insured Vehicle was not able to start, the Driver parked it at the same point and left the place with his friend Mr. Jagtar Singh and when Driver returned in the morning on 08.12.2019 (next day) the Insured Vehicle has been stolen. That it is noteworthy to mention that the Driver himself left Insured Vehicle unattended at the middle of a road, which itself is an act of gross negligence. The Driver could have arrange to tow the Insured Vehicle to nearby safe place, Mechanic Shop, any paid parking lot or at his friend's place, but he took zero efforts in safeguarding the Insured Vehicle Generally, people safeguard their Vehicle in these situation and does not leave it unattended. If the Driver could arrange a shelter for himself on a cold winter night then he can do so in case of vehicle also, but he did not safeguarded the Vehicle for the reasons better known to himself or the Complainant. It is further averred that neither the Driver nor the complainant informed Police about the theft of the Insured Vehicle neither immediately nor within 24 hours. It is of utter shock that what could be the reason that they chose not to inform Police? Any person who have experienced theft of any of his belonging let alone a four wheeler immediately go to Police to register his Complaint, so that the Vehicle/belonging can be traced out before it may be taken far. On the contrary note, with utmost negligence and foul play, the FIR was registered for this theft of Insured Vehicle on 10.01.2020 i.e. post expiry of more than a month. From the very beginning of the incidents, the act of Complainant and Driver has been alarmingly doubtful and full of baseless concocted story. It is further averred that the Complainant informed the answering OP on 15.01.2020, clearly after a delay of about 37 days. The answering OP further appointed an Independent Surveyor cum Investigator named Mr. Shubham Arora, for inspecting the authenticity of the Claim and ancillary incidents. The Surveyor inspected the claim and submitted his interim report on 08.07.2020 and detailed report on 10.08.2020. The answering OP after going through the Survey report and other documents submitted by the complainant, sent him many Clarification/Reminder letters asking the reasons of delay in intimating the answering OP and registering the FIR but no response received from Complainant till date. The Complainant never paid any heed to such requests and chooses to sleep over his rights in gross negligence until now and then he filed this Complaint to harass the answering OP. It is pertinent to mention here that keeping in view the good faith in the Insurance industry, the answering Opposite Party time and again requesting him to provide sufficient cause of delay in intimating about the theft of Insured Vehicle whether to the Police Station or to the answering Opposite Party. The answering Opposite Party mentioned in its Clarification/Reminder letters that the Complainant has conducted a breach of Terms and Conditions of the Policy, which states as:
‘Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender."
Hence, the above mentioned condition is sufficient to prove that the claim has been denied in justifiable manner without infringing any rights of the Complainant and any offence to the law of land. It is further averred that even till date the answering OP is waiting for the clarification from the complainant behind the cause of delay of more than a month in intimation about the theft of the Insured Vehicle and the Claim vide Claim ID CM178039 has not been closed yet. It is of utter dismay and shock for the answering OP to learn that instead of giving sufficient reasons behind the delay in intimation, the complainant chose to file the instant complaint to harass and drag the answering OP unnecessarily in litigation. It is further averred that the complainant has filed the present complaint with no rationale but only with the malafide intention of making wrongful gain. It is further averred that the claim was closed for the non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy, as per the conditions and stipulated time limit mentioned herein and for that reason the answering OP did not commit any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and any mental agony or harassment. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had insured his car from the OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had insured his car bearing No.PB-02-BX-3517 from the OP for the period 28.01.2019 to 27.01.2020 by paying a sum of Rs.19,291/-, which is evident from Ex.C-1. The car was being used by his friend on 08.12.2019 and the same was stolen from Sangrur, where the same was being used by his friend. An FIR No.9 dated 10.01.2020 was got registered, which is evident from Ex.C-2. The complainant approached the OP through his insurance agent on 09.12.2019 for lodging the claim and the claim of the complainant was refused for want of FIR. Then the OP sent two letters dated 10.11.2019, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 one was original letter and another was reminder letter, whereby they demanded documents i.e. Final Untraced Report U/s 173 Cr. P. C. All the documents were provided to the OP through aforesaid surveyor, except final untraced report and then on 12.06.2020, the complainant again received an envelope containing two letters dated 04.06.2020 Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, whereby they again demanded some additional documents. All the requisite documents were provided to the OP in two phases, but on both the occasions no acknowledgment was provided by the OP. Copy of Final Untraced Report alongwith Order of the Court Ex.C-8 has also been produced on record. As per Ex.C-8 the untraced report was accepted by the Court on 15.07.2020. Despite submitting all the requisite documents, the OP rejected the claim of the complainant. Request has been made to allow the complaint.
7. The contention of the OP is that the driver himself had left the insured vehicle unattended at the middle of a road, which itself is an act of gross negligence. The driver could have arranged to tow the insured vehicle to nearby safe place, but he did not make any effort in safeguarding the insured vehicle nor informed the police about the theft of the insured vehicle immediately. FIR was registered for this theft of insured vehicle on 10.01.2020 after more than one month of theft and the OP was informed on 15.01.2020 even after 5 days of registration of the FIR, but this contention of the OPs is not tenable. It is not disputed that the vehicle was insured. Though, the complainant informed the OP after registration of FIR i.e. after more than one month, then it would have no effect as the OP was duly informed and the FIR was also registered. Now this fact has been proved that the untraced report has been filed by the police and the same has been accepted by the police. It is also proved on record that the surveyor was appointed and he inspected the vehicle and submitted his report after assessing the damages, the same has been proved as Ex.OP-3. The allegations of the complainant is that the claim has not been decided by the OP, whereas the OP has alleged that for want of documents and the clarification regarding the delay in FIR, the claim has not been settled. Surveyor was also appointed for inspection the authenticity of the claim and ancillary incidents. The Surveyor inspected the claim and submitted his interim report on 08.07.2020 and detailed report on 10.08.2020 as Ex.OP-3. The OP sent a reminder letter dated 23.12.2020 Ex.OP-4 to the complainant for knowing the reasons of delay in intimating to the OP and registering the FIR, but the complainant failed to provide documents. The documents have been produced on record by the complainant. In such circumstances, the complainant is directed to supply the necessary required information/documents including the untraced report and order of the Court alongwith other required documents, to the OPs, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and then the OPs will settle the claim of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the necessary documents/information, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. Original documents submitted alongwith the complaint be returned to the complainant for onward submission of the same to OPs for the settlement of the claim. Thus, this complaint is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
16.03.2023 Member Member President
