Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 63/2019
Pushpender s/o of Sh. Yashpal Singh
R/o Village-Sarfabad, Krishna Colony,
Sector-73, Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Presently Residing at
C-204, LIG Flats, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093. ...Complainant
Versus
OP1- M/s National Insurance Company Limited
(through General Manager)
General Claim Hub, 2E/25,
3rd Floor, above HDFC Bank, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi-110055.
OP2- M/s National Insurance Company Limited
(through its Chairman)
Regd. Office:-3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229,
Kolkata-700071, West Bengal. ...Opposite Parties
Date of filing: 19.03.2019
Date of Order: 07.06.2023
Coram: Shri InderJeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Shahina
ORDER
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging that the complainant had purchased a Jeep taxi bearing registration no. UP16T8571, Model XYLO, Mahindra & Mahindra on 05.05.2016 from its previous owner for use of Taxi purposeand it was covered for lost/theft from the insurance policy.The complainant states that, when his registered vehicle was stolen then the OPsdid not allow the claim of the complainant and rejected on the vague and baseless ground and, thus, the complainant faced harassment; apart from mental pain and agony.
2. Sh. Pushpender s/o of Sh. Yashpal Singh (in short the complainant) has filed the complaint against M/s National Insurance Company Limited through General Manager (in short OP1) & its head is M/s National Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman (in short OP2) u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present complaint, the complainant has stated that the OP1 is the Branch of OP2; and OP2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
The complainant had purchased a Jeep TAXI bearing registration no. UP16T8571, modal XYLO, Mahindra & Mahindra on 05.05.2016 from previous owner for Taxi purpose,having insurance vide policy no. 361102/31/15/6300008253, which covered loss/theft,the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.5,04,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Four Thousand only) (IDV) and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 20,455/- as a premium amount.
3. That on 28.07.2016, the said vehicle was stolen and FIR no. 0697/2016 was registered with the Police Station, Tronicacity, Ghaziabad, UP(page no. 12 of the complaint). The said vehicle was not found/traced and untraced report was filed in the Court of Ld. M.M. Ghaziabad Court, UP& it was accepted. (page no. 10 of the complaint).
4. The complainant, thereafter, informed the OP1 about the theft of the vehicle and submitted his claim accordingly. The complainant further submits that after sometime, Sh. Arvind Kumar, on behalf of OP1 had informed the complainant for processing of claim and the complainant completed all the required formalities but OP1 rejected the claim of the complainant on 20.03.2017 and OP stated the ground of the repudiation that “your file stands closed as ‘NO CLAIM’on the account of non-compliance of requirements. The claim of the complainant was not paid. The complainant states that he contacted the Sh. Arvind Kumar of OP1 but he declined to process the claim of the complainant. This acts of the OP1 has been shown that the OPs were not interested to allow the claim of the complainant and rejected on the vague and baseless grounds. Further states that the complainant approached the branch of OPs on various occasions but there is gross the deficiency in services and negligence on the part of the OPs, which cause mental harassment and agony to complainant.
5. The complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel on 05.03.2018 and it was served to the OPs but no result. Hence, this complaint before this Commission.
The complaint is accompanying with copy of registration certificate, insurance policy, repudiation letter dated 20.03.2017, legal notice dated 05.03.2018. The complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental pain and agony and also felt cheated, since complainant suffered deficiency of service and unfair trade practices on the part of OPs. The complainant seeks direction to OPs pay the complainant the insured amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- against stolen vehicle along with interest @ 24% p.a. and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony; cost of Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- towards the cost of the legal notice.
6. Notice on complaint was sent to OPs.The OPs had appeared. OPs in their reply, inter-alia, pleaded that the competent authority of OPs repudiated the claim in light of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that Sh. Laxmandas Arora was appointed to investigate in respect of insured vehicle which was stolen in the intervening night of 16/17.07.2016; OPs had written number of letters to the complainant demanding relevant documents for proper investigation of the theft claim, despite receiving the letter from the opposite party, the complainant has not been supplied the required documents to the OP1. The OPs further state that on 16.02.2017, itsent a reminder but the complainant did not provide required documents; that is why, ultimately OPs have closed the file as ‘NO CLAIM’ vide letter dated 20.03.2017 on the basis of non-compliance of requirements. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable.
7. The OPs plea in their W/S is that the said theft of vehicle occurred under Police Station, Tronica City, Ghaziabad, UP. Moreover, the insurance policy was taken at Faridabad Branch (Ist floor, Sector-16, Market, Faridabad-121007). Thus, the cause of action has not been arisen in Delhi. In this regard, the OPs rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case title as M/s Sonic Surgicals vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1560/2004 dod 20.10.2009, wherein, it has been observed that, the expression ‘branch office’ in the Consumer Protection Act means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen; In the present case, the cause of action arose at Faridabad Branch where the insurance policy was taken. The OPs further plea that the insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer and the terms and conditions thereof are strictly adhered to by both the parties. Hence, there is no cause of action against the OPs and no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.
8. The complainant filed his affidavit for evidence, it is in compact form on the lines of complaint, reflecting all the documents filed with the complaint such as the registration certificate, insurance policy, repudiation letter dated 20.03.2017, legal notice dated 05.03.2018 which are on record.
9. OPs filed affidavit of evidence of Sh. Partap Singh s/o of Late Sh. Dalip Singh age 54 yrs., an officer and Attorney (legal) of the opposite partyand reliance is placed on copy of insurance policy which is on the line of W/S. (The evidence is led on the pattern of reply of the OPs.)
10. The contentions of both the sides are considered by us, keeping in view the record and case of both sides.
There is dispute by OPs on the point of jurisdiction of this Commission, whereas on the other side OP1 has sent the rejection letter of the claim of the vehicle from National Insurance Co. Ltd. at General Claim HUB, 2E/25, 3rd Floor, above HDFC Bank, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction on the basis of address of branch office and the OPs are taking objection that cause of action had arisen from the place where insurance policy was issued. The plea of OPs is misplaced, since the jurisdiction of Commission can be invoked on the basis of place of business independent of the place of cause of action and the branch office of OP is located within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Moreover, issuing of rejection letter is also a cause of action happened within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
11. Sh. Sandeep Dhariwal, Advocate for OPs has raised an objection that there was non-compliance of requirement of furnishing of documents, whereas the other side Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant request that all the compliances burden, all the documents asked were also furnished. Nothing was left unattended. Moreover, the record was also obtained under RTI that the vehicle was fit and fitness certificate was also issued in respect of vehicle own by the complainant; the same also being furnished in the present file of complaint.
However, Ld. Counsel for OP request that permit was not furnished, it has been opposed by the complainant that nowhere either in the written statement or in evidence or otherwise, no such document was asked for and all of a sudden it has been projected first time, in order to defeat the filing of the complaint.
On perusal of the record, there is substance in the plea of complainant that the OP had never referred document of permit either in the written statement nor in the evidence and written arguments have not been filed. Moreover, in the repudiation letter dated 20.03.2017, there is close of claim on account of non-compliance of requirement, however, the document permit is not mentioned as well as in the repudiation letter there is reference of reminder but OPs have not proved any reminder or letter showing that permit was asked specifically; the complainant is rightly pointed out that there is vague and general objection taken to deny the claim.
12. The complainant has also placed on record legal notice dated 05.03.2018 and it was responded by OPs by reply dated 14.03.2018, there is no reference of any document as such permit. Had it been the requirement and the OPs has asked the complainant to furnish this document, the OPs were required to prove the letters, reminders, etc. that permit was asked at material time. The plea of OPs an afterthought.
13. Since, the OPs have rejected the claim because of want of furnishing the documents whereas on the other side the complainant furnish the requisite record vis-à-vis the rejection letter is vague and other letters have not been proved on behalf of OPs as to what exactly documents were not furnished; the denial of claim is not bona-fide but mala-fide. It is deficiency of service on the part of OPs by denying the claim of the said vehicle, therefore, complainant is held entitled claim amount of Rs. 5,04,000/- equal to IDV.
The complainant claims interest of 24% p.a.; and considering the circumstances, complainant got insured vehicle against the huge premium of Rs. 20,455/- to the OPs; he is held entitled for interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization of the amount. Since, the complainant has faced harassment and mental agony, therefore, he is held entitle for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in his favour and against the OPs, besides cost is also quantified as Rs. 5,000/-.
14. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complaint and against the OPs while directing the OPs to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 5,04,000/- along with the interest @ 7% from the date of complaint till realization of the amount; besides damages of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The amount will be payable within 30 days. In case, the amount is not paid within 30 days the rate of interest will be 8% p.a. in the place of interest @ 7% p.a. on amount of Rs. 5,04,000/-.
15. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
16. Announced on this 07th June, 2023.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
