Complainant Kewal Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the insurance claim to him for the loss suffered by him due to theft of his vehicle i.e. TATA Tipper/Truck bearing registration No.PB06-F-2217 which was fully insured with the opposite party vide a policy of insurance bearing no.401500/31/13/6300005262 valid from 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2014 with IDV value of the vehicle in question as Rs.4,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 9%, also to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony alongwith Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that earlier he alongwith one Sh.Mohan Lal son of Sh.Satpal, resident of Preet Nagar, Pathankot were joint owner under a partnership in vehicle i.e. TATA/Truck bearing no.PB06-F-2217 and the said vehicle was hypothecated with the ICICI Bank Ltd., Pathankot. Sh.Mohan Lal had relinquished his right from the said partnership vide a special power of attorney dated 27.06.2007.After the relinquishment of right by one partner namely Sh.Mohan Lal, then other partner i.e. he become the sole owner in possession of the vehicle in dispute and was using the same to earn his livelihood. He got insured his vehicle from the opposite party and policy having 401500/31/13/6300005262 has been issued and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for a period from 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2014 and the IDV value has been declared as Rs.4,20,000/-. The insurance has been taken not for any benefit but only to indemnify the loss if any occurred and as such he falls under the definition of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His vehicle was stolen in the intermediate night of 2.4.2014 to 03.04.2014. The FIR No.55 dated 3.4.2014 Under Section 379 IPC was duly registered Under Section 379 IPC at P.S.Indora, in the area of which the vehicle was stolen. After that the intimation has been duly given to the Insurance Company. The copy of FIR and insurance policy also provided to opposite party. After that the Un-trace Report was filed by the police in the court and the untraced report was accepted by the court of JMIC, Indora District Kangra (H.P.) on dated 1.10.2015.The entire documents has been duly provided to the Insurance Company. He was also sent to Delhi by the opposite party and asked to bring the report from the Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime record Bureau regarding the stolen truck and the same was also provided to the opposite party and as such all the formalities have been duly completed, but in spite of all this, the claim has not been paid by the opposite party without any reasonable cause. He moved a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before this Ld. Forum vide complaint bearing no.237 of 2016, date of institution 22.06.2016. In the said complaint the opposite party no.2 was duly appeared through his counsel and filed written reply and he admitted in his reply that the complainant informed to the opposite party no.2 regarding the theft of insured vehicle and also provided the copy of FIR regarding the theft of said vehicle. The said complaint was disposed off by this Ld.Forum vide order dated 25.11.2016. In compliance of the order of this Ld.Forum he again submitted all the requisite documents on the asking of the opposite parties within the stipulated period and thereafter approached so many time to the office of opposite party no.2 and requested them to release the insurance claim in his favour or to disclose him any deficiency in the insurance file, which may be rectified or fulfilled, but instead of hearing him patiently the employees of opposite parties misbehaved with him and flatly refused to release the insurance claim. Thereafter, he moved an application under section 27 for taking stern action against the opposite parties. Divisional Manager made a statement before the Ld.Forum that the entire claim file including the documents submitted by the applicant has been forwarded to the Regional Office Ludhiana for an appropriate decision as the matter falls within the jurisdiction of financial authority Regional Office, Ludhiana. The opposite parties have failed continuously to give any satisfactory reply and it has been their willful failure to accept his due and genuine claim and at last they repudiated his claim vide letter dated 23.06.2017 with vague some allegations. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment and moreover the opposite parties have also failed to pay the claim amount without reasonable cause. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable because this complaint has already been adjudicated upon by the Ld.Forum. After appreciating the entire evidence and the argument on behalf of both the parties, the Ld.Forum had directed the complainant to submit the required documents to the opposite party and the opposite party was directed to decide the fate of the claim within a period of 30 days but the complainant has not given any document regarding his absolute ownership. The complainant has pleaded that his partner Mohan Lal by an affidavit dated 27.06.2007 had relinquished his right over the vehicle, but on the date of filing previous complaint and even on this date the vehicle stands in RC as well as in the policy of insurance for the period 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2014 which was effective on the date of loss, in the names both Mohan Lal and Kewal Singh. When on the date of loss of insured vehicle, the vehicle was a joint property, the insurance company cannot compensate the loss to one owner. If the complainant claims that he is the sole owner of the vehicle he has to produce the documents to that effect. On merits, it was submitted that the information regarding theft of the insured vehicle was provided to the office of Insurance Company. It was also not disputed that FIR regarding theft of the said vehicle was also provided by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Sh.Mohan Lal Ex.C-15 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence.
- Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager of the opposite party Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.P-2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments as duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the delay/non-settlement/closure and subsequent repudiation (Ex.C14) dated 23.06.2017 at the hands of the OP insurers of the complainant’s impugned theft-claim (Ex.C8) for the IDV of the insured stolen Tripper Truck alleging joint ownership in two names including the complainant. As per the complainant’s version the other joint owner Mohan Lal had relinquished his ownership and other rights in the stolen Truck in his favor much before the theft-occurrence and as such he was entitled to the proceeds of the theft-claim.
7. We observe that the present complaint was first filed before this very forum as CC # 237/2016 and was duly disposed of vide the forum’s orders dated 25.11.2016 directing the complainant to file the requisite informatory documents (evidencing relinquishment of joint ownership’s rights by the other joint owner in favor of the complainant) with the OP insurers to enable them to settle the impugned claim. Thus, we find that the exclusive issues of Truck-ownership (and rights over the claim proceeds) stood pre-settled vide the forum’s orders (25.11.2016) and the OP insurers were only to ensure settlement/ payment of the impugned theft-claim in conformity with the other issues qua the related policy as well as the IRDA guidelines. However, the OP insurers herein have re-opened the issue that had already attained finality in adjudicatory vide the forum’s orders but to the misinterpretation (as said at its best) at the OP insurers’ end and that presently rakes them up to an adverse statutory award.
8. We observe that the complainant has sufficiently and satisfactorily proved all the contents of his allegation-contented complaint vide his Affidavits (Ex.C1) and that (Ex.C15) of Mohan Lal the other previous joint-owner (of the stolen Truck) along with the other evidentiary support-documents exhibited here as: Ex.C2 to Ex.C14. On the other hand, the OP insurers have duly admitted the impugned claim-repudiation but have miserably failed to appreciate that the issue of ‘relinquishment of rights’ over the stolen insured Truck stood already adjudicated on their forsakenly re-pleaded ground i.e., joint-ownership as basis of repudiation. Even, its own appointed surveyor has duly assessed the theft-loss at the insured Truck’s IDV requisitioning the OP insurers to settle the theft-claim. The OP insurers, on the other hand, have produced affidavit (Ex.OP1) along with other evidentiary but redundant documents exhibited here as: (Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8) that however do not tangibly support the impugned repudiation.
9. We are certainly not convinced with the basic logic as put forth by the OP insurers to support its impugned repudiation of the otherwise a valid theft-loss claim simply on the grounds of alleged ‘joint-ownership’ of the Truck sans some cogent and/or other reliable evidence. Even, the OP designated Surveyor has verified the ‘theft’ as true and genuine in his investigation report in the wake up of police and untraced report etc thus the impugned delay, non-settlement, closure and subsequent repudiation surely indicates of hue of unfair trade practices as adopted by the insurers. However, we find that the resultant repudiation has neither been necessary nor fair measured against the fact that the insured Truck was indeed stolen as proved per the evidence produced on records and as such the instant delay and subsequent repudiation amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP insurers and that rakes them up to an adverse statutory award under the applicable Act.
10. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present claim and thus ORDER the titled OP insurers to pay the impugned theft-claim @ related policy IDV and its other terms to the present complainant besides to pay him Rs 10,000/- as cost and compensation (for having caused delay and harassment) within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of this complaint till actually paid.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
July 23, 2018 Member.
*MK*
