Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/272

Dalbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Varul Jain

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 272 of 04.04.2016

Date of Decision            :   15.11.2016 

 

Dalbir Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh, H.No.108, Ramgarh Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.The National Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & H.O.:3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700071 through its General Manager/Director.

2.The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch-VII, B-154, Kalisah Nagar, Focal Point Sherpur, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          Sh.Vaarun Jain, Advocate

For Ops                          :          Sh.M.S.Jassal, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, the owner of Toyota Innova car of silver colour bearing registration No.CH-04-8395 having chassis No.4007079092 and engine No.9848021, got the same insured with Ops through insurance policy No.401314/31/12/6100000843 dated 10.7.2012 for sum of Rs.7 lac by paying premium of Rs.20,757/-. Said insurance was having validity from 10.7.2012 to 9.7.2013. Cover for insurance was provided for security against theft, accident etc. On 19.1.2013 at about 11:30 AM, complainant and his friends namely Jaspreet Singh and Varinder Singh went to attend wedding of their friend Jasvir Singh at Simran Palace Doraha. After locking the said car outside the palace, they went inside and at about 1:30 PM, when the complainant and his friends returned back after attending the wedding, then they found the car not there, where it was parked by them. Despite efforts by the complainant and his friends, the car could not be traced. Later on it was found that the original registration certificate and other valuable documents of the complainant have been stolen by some unidentified persons. FIR No.6 dated 19.1.2013 u/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S.Doraha, Ludhiana. Intimation regarding theft supplied to Ops on 21.1.2013 and thereafter, OP2 deputed its officials for conducting spot enquiry. Those officials called upon the complainant to supply the copy of FIR report,non-traceability report from Illaqa Magistrate, NCRB report, endorsement of engine number and chassis number in FIR and duplicate RC and other relevant documents. All those documents were supplied, but thereafter, Op2 procrastinated the matter for three years. Later on officials of OP2 refused to settle the claim by proclaiming that insurance claim not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. Non-settlement of the claim for a gap of 3 years alleged to be an act of deficient service, which has caused mental harassment to the complainant. After serving a legal notice dated 14.3.2016 through counsel and finding that no reply received from Ops, this complaint filed for issuing directions to Ops to pay Rs.7 lac as insurance claim with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of claim till realization. Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by Ops jointly, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is barred in view of section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing this complaint and complaint otherwise also is not maintainable. Admittedly, the insurance policy in question was purchased and after receiving the intimation through letter dated 21.1.2013 qua the theft of the insured vehicle and submission of motor claim form, Sh.R.S.Ahluwalia, Investigator was deputed, who after visiting the spot, conducted investigation by record of statements of Dalbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Varinder Singh, prepared report dated 25.4.2013, which was submitted on 29.4.2013 with Ops. Ops sent letter dated 26.2.2013 to the complainant that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle not mentioned in the FIR, due to which, complainant should produce the endorsement of the engine number and chassis number. Report dated 15.4.2013 of H.C. Sh.Raghbir Singh of P.S.Doraha was submitted by the complainant to Ops for disclosing that due to non availability of the engine number and chassis number, the same could not be written in the FIR. Complainant also submitted report dated 17.9.2013 of SHO Doraha through which it was disclosed that investigation was conducted effectively, but no clue has been got qua traceability of the car. Through that report, it was disclosed that more investigation was required. Thereafter, untraceability report prepared for presentation before Illaqa Magistrate. Ops called upon the complainant through letter dated 19.2.2014 to provide the copy of untraced report accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate. Even request to complainant was made to submit the endorsement of engine number and chassis number in the FIR. Letters dated 7.3.2014, 22.5.2014, 14.7.2014 and 2.9.2014 were sent to the complainant for requesting him to provide non-traceable certificate obtained from the Illaqa Magistrate u/s 173 Cr.P.C along with NCRB report and endorsement of engine number and chassis number in FIR and original RC or in the alternative, duplicate RC issued by the authorities. Complainant provided the verification report dated 20.3.2014 issued by the District Transport Officer, Moga qua ownership of the vehicle in question. Complainant submitted orders dated 8.6.2015 passed by the Court of Sh.Rachhpal Singh, SDJM, Payal for accepting the untraced report. Complainant was asked by Ops through letter dated 11.1.2016 to provide copy of D.L. of Sukhbir Singh and copy of letter sent to Registering Authority regarding theft of the said vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letter dated 27.1.2016 to the District Transport Officer, Moga qua the theft of the said car. Complainant completed the submission of required documents on 27.1.2016 enabling Ops to process the claim. After receiving the required documents and going through the report of M/s R.P.Gupta & Company surveyors deputed for valuation of the vehicle, it was found that the worth of the stolen vehicle was Rs.5 lac and that is why after deducting Rs.2000/- under compulsory excess clause, approval for payment of Rs.4,98,000/- was granted. Consent from the complainant for payment of amount of Rs.4,98,000/- was required and that is why, the complainant was called upon through letters dated 9.3.2016 to send the same. However, the said consent letter not received from the complainant till date. Ops have not refused to pay the claim to the complainant. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 as well as affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Jaspreet Singh and thereafter, complainant along with his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Surinder Kumar, Branch Manager of OP2 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R25 and thereafter, counsel for Ops closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

6.                Undisputedly, the vehicle in question bearing registration No.CH-04-8395 was insured by the complainant with Ops through insurance cover note Ex.C1=Ex.R1 and on theft of the same being committed during insurance period i.e.on 19.1.2013, FIR Ex.C2=Ex.R5 was lodged by the complainant and he sent intimation of the theft Ex.R2 to the Branch Manager of insurance company and thereafter, submitted Motor Claim Form Theft Ex.R3 and even wrote letter Ex.R4 for claiming that intimation of theft was given on the day of theft itself. Ops deputed Sh.R.S.Ahluwalia, Investigator after receipt of the Motor Claim Form and he submitted report Ex.R7 dated 25.4.2013 for reporting that in fact the theft of the insured vehicle took place on 19.1.2013 from outside of Gursimran Marriage     Palace, Doraha. Further, he reported through this report Ex.R7 itself that despite efforts by the police, the insured vehicle remained untraced and as such, recommendation made for settlement of the claim on verification of ownership record and on getting the endorsement of engine and chassis number from the police records. Even if recommendation through Ex.R7 may have been made on 25.4.2013, despite that formalities of verification of ownership was to be done along with requisition of getting the endorsement of engine number and chassis number and as such, for getting the needful done from the complainant, letter Ex.R8 on 26.2.2013 was written to the complainant. Report regarding the engine and chassis number prepared by HC Sh.Raghbir Singh on 15.4.2013 and same produced on record as Ex.R9. As the vehicle in question remained untraced, despite efforts by the police and as such, report of untraceability Ex.R11 was prepared on 17.9.2013 and the same was accepted by Sh.Rachhpal Singh, SDJM through orders, copy of which produced on record as Ex.R19. It was only after receipt of report of untraceability and other documents that due process for insurance claim could have been completed. Document Ex.R18 received on 13.8.2015 by the insurance company shows that the complainant informed about submission of non-traceability of insurance certificate report of Illaqa Magistrate, NCRB report and endorsement of FIR. So, virtually formality of  submission of remaining documents completed on 13.8.2015 by the complainant and not before that. If that be the position, then submissions advanced by the counsel for the complainant has no force that the complainant entitled to interest on the claimed insurance amount from the date of submission of claim form. Until and unless the complainant completed formalities, he was not entitled for insurance claim and as such, by keeping in view the fact qua receipt of Ex.C18 on 13.8.2015, certainly the complainant not entitled to any interest prior to this date.

7.                It is vehemently contended by Sh.M.S.Jassal, Advocate representing Ops that Ops after obtaining survey valuation report Ex.R20 of Mr.R.P.Gupta, processed the claim and offered to pay Rs.4,98,000/- through letter Ex.R23 of date 9.3.2016. So, certainly it is not a case in which, repudiation of the claim had taken place. However, it is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that in fact  contents of Ex.C1=Ex.R1 establishes that the vehicle in question was insured for sum of Rs.7 lac and as such, the complainant entitled for full insurance amount of Rs.7 lac. In report Ex.R20 of R.P.Gupta and company, it is mentioned that the insured vehicle was manufactured in July 2007 and theft of the same took place on 19.1.2013. So, the vehicle in question was 5 years and 6 months old at the time of incident of theft. So, keeping in view this fact in mind, the IDV calculated at Rs.7 lac and vehicle insured for that amount through Ex.C1=Ex.R1. Insured Declared Value(IDV) is the maximum Sum Assured fixed by insurer. This Assured sum has to be provided on theft or total loss of the vehicle. Basically, IDV is the current market value of the vehicle and as such, Rs.7 lac was mentioned as current market value of the vehicle on the day of insurance namely 10.7.2012. As per search on Google Internet on website www.policybazaar.com, the depreciation schedule is as follow:-

Age of Vehicle	% Depreciation for adjusting IDV
Not exceeding 6 months	5%
Exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1 year	15%
Exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 2 years	20%
Exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years	30%
Exceeding 3 years but not exceeding 4 years	40%
Exceeding 4 years but not exceeding 5 years	50%

8.                At the time of theft of the vehicle for IDV of Rs.7 lac, period of 6 months and 9 days elapsed and as such, by keeping in view the above schedule of depreciation in mind, it is appropriate to deduct 15% of IDV on account of depreciation as per above referred schedule. After deducting 15% IDV from sum assured of Rs.7 lac, complainant become entitled to compensation for an amount of Rs.5,95,000/-. Surprisingly enough, none of the parties has produced on record the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question and as such, the practice followed in the market in respect of percentage of depreciation has to be taken in view of finding due amount. After deducting 15% on account of depreciation for period of 6 months and 9 days, complainant becomes entitled to compensation of amount of Rs.5,95,000/- i.e. Rs.7 lac (IDV) – Rs.1,05,000/-(15% of IDV). Ops have not refused to pay the amount of Rs.4,98,000/-, but they sought consent letter at earliest from the complainant by writing letters Ex.R23 to Ex.R25 of dates 9.3.2016, 18.3.2016 and 31.3.2016 respectively. Complainant has not replied to these letters and as such, fault lay with him in not settling the matter at earliest. In view of offer of Rs.4,98,000/- given by Ops to the complainant, it was the duty of the complainant to reply any of the letters Ex.R23 to Ex.R25 for disclosing that offer is not acceptable, but the same not done except that of sending legal notice Ex.C3 dated 14.3.2016 through postal receipts Ex.C4 & Ex.C5 and as such, complainant will be entitled to interest only if the above referred compensation amount of Rs.5,95,000/- not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, but from the date of filing of complaint only. However, complainant stood mentally harassed a lot because of theft and non-settlement of the claim for a long time and as such, sufficient amount of compensation under this head need to be allowed.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will pay Rs.5,95,000/- to the complainant as insurance amount of the stolen vehicle. Payment be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, Ops will be liable to pay interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint namely 4.4.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against Ops. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be also made by Ops within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, amount of litigation expenses and compensation for mental harassment will not bear any interest. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:15.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.