District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.179/2020.
Date of Institution: 03.07.2020.
Date of Order: 08.07.2022.
Mohit S/o Shri Sohan Lal r/o village Janoli Tehsil & Teshil & Distt. Palwal.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 5-C/1-2, B.P.Neelam Chowk, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s. Dev Vaahan, Civil Line, Delhi-Mathura road, Palwal, Haryana – 12001 through its Authorized Signatory.
…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.
PRESENT: Sh.Laxmi Narayan Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Shri Yashpal Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a M/cycle Marka Hero on dated 10th August 2017 from the opposite party No.2 and registration bearing No. HR-30-R/9321 was obtained from Registering Authority SDM Palwal. The vehicle was insured at the time of purchasing on dated 10.08.2017 by National Insurance Co. Ltd., Neelam Chowk, Faridabad and IDV value of M/cycles was assessed as Rs.37,328/- and premium was Rs.1,673/- per annum. After some time on 11.03.2018 M/cycle of complainant was stolen by someone in the area of P.s.Sector-55, Faridabad. Opposite party No.1 was informed regarding the theft of the said m/cycle of complainant on 14.03.2018. FIR NO. 0141 dated 12.03.2018 u/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Sector-55, Faridabad regarding the theft of the M/cycle. The police could not trace the bike and submitted the untraced report on dated 14.04.2018 in the court. Thereafter the complainant had applied for claim for the amount as per terms and conditions and provisions as mentioned in the Insurance Policy Plan. But opposite party No.1 had rejected the claim of the complainant on 11.3.2019 bearing policy No. 62030313628 file No. 821/2017 for vehicle No. HR-30-R/9321 with remarks that due to non-deposition of key of the m/cycle the file was closed and the claim was declined. Opposite party No.1 had declined the claim of the complainant on false ground as the original key of the m/cycle was handed over to the opposite party No.1 on the same day on 14.03.2018 at the time the opposite party was informed regarding the theft of the m/cycle and ground of opposite party No.1 for rejecting the claim of the complainant was baseless and unlawful. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.11.2019 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The complainant had filed a complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties vide Consumer complaint No. 46 dated 17.01.2020 before the Hon’ble President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad which was decided by the Hon’ble Forum vide order dated 07.02.2020 which the Hon’ble Forum had passed the following order:-
“The counsel for the complainant is directed to lodge claim within 15 days with the insurance company and then the insurance company will settle the claim within 30 days from the date of receipt of claim form the complainant. However, if the claim of the complainant is repudiated then he is at liberty to file the fresh complaint before this Forum.” Thereafter as per the above said order of the Hon’ble Consumer Forum, the complainant had moved an application before the Insurance Company dated 11.02.2020 vide which the complainant had requested to them to supply a claim form, so that the complainant may compliance the court order dated 07.02.2020 for lodging a fresh claim. Upon which the insurance company had provided the Motor Insurance claim Form to the complainant on the same date and after filing the complete claim form the complainant submitted the same with the Insurance company alongwith Application for claim of m/cycle in which the applicant had mentioned the detail of enclosed documents with the Motor Insurance claim Form on dated 11.2.2020. Thereafter the complainant received a letter dated 25.02.2020 vide which the Insurance Company demanded form the complainant “to submit the required documents alongwith both the original keys of the vehicle and driving license of the claimant with the insurance office.” Thereafter the complainant again sent a letter to the Insurance company on dated 02.03.2020 vide which the complainant disclosed to the Insurance company that the original key of the said m/cycle were already submitted in their office which they had received both the original keys on 14.03.2018. Thereafter the complainant many times requested the insurance company to settle his claim as per the order of the Hon’ble Forum but insurance company was not giving any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and had not settled the claim of the complainant till date. 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) get pass the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions as mentioned in Insurance policy and also release the claim amount in favour of the complainant.
b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.21,000/ - as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that earlier the complainant was filed complaint which was dismissed on the ground of premature and gave direction to the complainant that he would submit all claimed documents to insurance company within 15 days and insurance company give reply within 30 days after receiving the documents, but the complainant did not comply the order of the Hon’ble Forum and filed this second complaint, which was not maintainable. Opposite party No.1 company informed the complainant for submit all the documents as per compliance of earlier order, but the complainant not submitted any documents to opposite party No.1.Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the co plainant had no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party. The complainant had not come with the clean hands before this Hon’ble forum and he had concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble forum. Opposite party No.2 was an unnecesary party. Opposite party No.2 was merely an agent of opposite party No.1 and hence, had nothing to do with the dispute of the claim between the compainant and opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 was unnecesarily dragged in the present complaint. It was further submitted that answering opposite party No.2 had no such intimation regarding raising of nay claim or thereafter rejection of opposite party No.1 However, if complainant had violated the terms and conditions of insuranc policy of insurance company that he was not liable for any claim. However, the replying opposite parties had no such knowledge and notice of claim. .Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – National Insurance Co. & Anr.. with the prayer to : a) get pass the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions as mentioned in Insurance policy and also release the claim amount in favour of the complainant. b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs.21,000/ - as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Mohit, Ex.C-1 – FIR, Ex.C-2 – Antim report, Ex.C-3 – insurance policy, Ex.C-4 – RC,, Ex.C-5 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-6 – Dava Suchna Patar, Ex.C-7 – Motor insurance claim form, Ex.C-8 – No Claim letter,, Ex.C-9 – Receipt of collection, Ex.C-10 – No Objection Certificate, Rc.V-11 – Applicaton by the opposite party dismissal of the complaint, Ex.C-12 - order passed by DCDRF dated 07.02.2020, Ex.C-13 – Application for providing claim form,, ex.C-14 – insurance claim form,, Ex.C-15 – Application for claim of M/Cycle, Ex.C-16 – letter daed 25.02.2020, Ex.C-17 – letter dated 02.03.2020.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party NO.1, Ex.RW1/A – Shri Vikrant Bhatt, assistant Officer, National Insurance c. Ltd., Faridabad,
Despite availing of several opportunities on behalf of opposite party No.2, evidence has not been filed. Hence, the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been closed by court order.
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 50%. 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 M/Cycle : Rs.37,328/-
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000/-
: Rs.36,328/-
Deduction 15% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 5,449.20
Total : Rs. 30,879 /-
10. The opposite party No.1 is directed to :
a) pay Rs.30,879/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
b) pay Rs. 2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
c) pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation expenses.
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: 08.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
