Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/323

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :                        323 of 2017

Date of Institution:       3.10.2017

Date of Decision :        5.03.2019

 

Sanjeev Kumar aged 39 years s/o Jawahar Lal, r/o Near Sham Mandir Surgapuri, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.       

                                                                ...Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd,  Krishna Street No.3, Fauji Road, Kotkapura through its Branch Manager.                                                                                        

....OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim for his stolen car and for further directing OP to pay Rs. On lac as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Tata Vistas car of complainant bearing Registration No PB04P-0583 was fully insured with OP vide Insurance Policy bearing no. 401702 /31/15 /

cc no.323 of 2017

6100000341 effective for the period from 15.06.2015 to 14.06.2016 for sum of Rs. 2,07,500/-against all kinds of risks including theft. It is submitted that car of complainant was stolen on 21.05.2016, regarding which FIR No.76 dated 21.05.2016 was lodged with Police Station, City Kotkapura and due intimation regarding theft was also given to OP within time. Complainant completed all the requisite formalities to obtain insurance claim, but OPs did not make single penny on pretext that complainant is not the registered owner of vehicle in question and its RC is in the name of Mr Somvera. On this, complainant approached the District Transport Office, Faridkot and took verification regarding transfer of car in his name and submitted the same with Opposite Party, but till today, OP have not cleared his claim. However, OP verbally told complainant that his claim has been closed but did not give anything in writing. Repeated requests made by complainant to OP to clear his claim on account of theft of his vehicle bore no fruit and this act of non payment of claim by  OP amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OP to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.10.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

cc no.323 of 2017

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by not taking reasonable steps to safeguard his vehicle and left the same unattended. As per complaint, complainant used to park his car in the building of Arya Samaj School, Kotkapura and was paying rent of Rs.400/- per month to a lady and keys of main gate were always with that lady. As alleged, prior to 10-15 days of theft, complainant parked his car and on 21.05.2016, when complainant reached there and took keys of gate from that lady, he found that his car was not there and someone has stolen the same by breaking window pane of car. OP asserted that all this story is made by complainant and does not seem true as keys of lock are always with that lady and even gate of school was also intact. There also seems connivance of Police in this case as it did not take any time in interrogation of theft and immediately registered FIR and even nobody has been interrogated in this case by Police. Moreover, intimation regarding alleged theft was not given to answering Op in time, rather it was given to OP on 23.05.2016 and no spot survey was got conducted by OP. Even complainant did not take any photograph of place of occurrence. It is averred that lengthy evidence is required in present case and it cannot be decided in summary procedure of this Forum and thus, complaint is required to be referred to Civil Court. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present

cc no.323 of 2017

complaint and to seek any relief. Ld counsel for OP submitted before the Forum that they also wrote letter dated 17.10.2017 to complainant asking him to clarify the exact date of theft and to provide statement of Care Taker of Arya Samaj School and to furnish receipt for paying parking fees. Complainant did not give any reply to their letter. Even complainant did not give any response to reminder issued by them on 6.11.2017. however, on merits, OP have taken same pleadings as taken by them in their preliminary objections and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Kuldeep Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on record by respective parties.

 

cc no.323 of 2017

8                                            From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that the insured car of complainant was stolen during the validity of insurance period and as per rules he gave due intimation regarding this incident to OP and also got recorded FIR no. 76 to this effect on 21.05.2016 Ex C-3, but OP have illegally and unlawfully repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that stolen car was negligently parked by complainant at the time of theft and RC of this car is in the name of one Somvera son of Nathu Ram and complainant is not the registered owner of car in question. Repudiation letter written by OP to complainant is Ex C-4. Action of OP in not making payment of genuine insurance claim on account of theft of his car, amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops stressed mainly on the point that complainant has been negligent in parking his car unattended and complainant is not the real owner of said car. As per OP complainant did not cooperate with them and also did not respond to letter dt 6.11.2017 issued by them vide which OP sought some vital information from him. OP also alleged that said incident occurred on 21.05.2016 and complainant got registered FIR to this effect on same day i.e 21.05.2016 in connivance with Police, but did not intimate the OP in time and informed them very late on 23.05.2016 depriving them to make spot survey. OP sternly argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

cc no.323 of 2017

9                                              To prove his case, he has produced copy of copy insurance policy Ex C-2 that clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that his car was insured with OP and alleged incident of theft occurred during the subsistence of insurance period. Ex C-3 further proves the fact that complainant gave due intimation regarding incident in question to Police and got registered FIR on 21.05.2016. Ex C-4 is the copy of letter dated 24.02.2017 vide which they have clearly mentioned the reason for repudiating the genuine claim of complainant. As per this letter, OP have repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that registration of car is not in the name of complainant, rather it is in the name of one Somvera son of Nathu Singh. Complainant has further placed on record cogent document that proves the fact written by District Transport Officer, Faridkot over a letter written by complainant to District Transport Officer, Faridkot for the purpose of obtaining verification regarding his vehicle in question. DTO, Faridkot has clearly mentioned over this letter Ex C-9 that RC pertaining to vehicle no.PB04P0583 stands transferred in the name of Sanjeev Kumar son of Jawahar Lal resident of Surgapuri / in the name of complainant. This verification given by DTO, Faridkot is beyond doubt and is an authentic document. Complainant has placed on record document Ex C-10 i.e copy of RC that shows that registration of vehicle is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar son of Jawahar Lal /complainant and complainant is the registered owner of this car. It is further argued that only duty of complainant is to inform the Police regarding incident and it is on the

cc no.323 of 2017

Police to register the FIR of complainant and complainant has no control on it whether Police registered the FIR on same day or after investigation. He has put reliance on citation 2008 (3) CPJ titled as Ridhi Gupta Vs National Insurance Company Ltd wherein State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi has held that in our view FIR is not a requirement for adjudicating the insurance claim. Whenever vehicle or any cash or goods are stolen, insured takes some time to search for the vehicle and the goods and does not lodge the report immediately. It is the discretion of the Police Officer to convert the complaint of the insured into the FIR or not. Information to the Police only is concerned whether the theft has taken place or not. Once the report is lodged with the Police may in any form, the Insurance Company is barred from appointing any Investigator to investigate into the fact whether the theft has taken place or not. It may appoint Surveyor for the purpose of assessing the loss. If the Police find that a person has lodged a false report, he can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 182 of the IPC but in any way the Insurance Company cannot indulge in such exercise and enter into such and arena that does not belong to it. The similar view is taken by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in 1^st Appeal No. 754/2010 decided on 18.10.2012 titled as Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Smt Sandhya Rani.

10                         Objection raised by OP that complainant is not the registered owner of car in question has no force as at the time of giving

cc no.323 of 2017

insurance policy in question to complainant, they never asked this question and issued the insurance policy to him and now, only to avoid the payment of claim they are putting such queries. Ex C-2 clearly proves the fact that policy in question was issued in the name of complainant for stolen car. Careful perusal of Ex C-2 i.e Insurance Policy issued by OP to complainant for the period from 15.06.2015 to 14.06.2016, leaves no doubt that complainant got insured his car in question from OP, thus, there is no reason to doubt that complainant is not the real owner of said car.

11                               It is observed that complainant immediately gave information to Police as well as to OP and submitted all the documents for processing the claim to them. OPs are now, intentionally denying this fact only to avoid the liability of indemnifying the complainant regarding his stolen article. If the complainant immediately reported the matter with Police, then, there is no reason for him to not to inform OP regarding the incident and to claim his genuine insurance claim. Now, the OP are intentionally denying regarding it. He further argued that if in any case, it is presumed that complainant did not inform Ops regarding incident on time, then in that case also, the OP cannot deny payment of insurance claim to complainant. On this, he put reliance on citation 2016(1) CLT 539 titled as Baja Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Abdul Sattar and anr wherein our Hon’ble National Commission has observed that in order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on relevant condition no.1 of insurance

cc no.323 of 2017

policy, which is reproduced as under”1. 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 process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to 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 policy and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender”. On reading the above, it is clear that in the event of theft of the vehicle, only requirement on the part of insured was to intimate the policy immediately and co-operate in securing the conviction of offender. He submitted that as per the observation of Hon’ble National Commission in case of theft, the only requirement on the part of complainant was to intimate the Police immediately and to cooperate with Police in securing the conviction of the offender and complainant duly complied with this condition and immediately reported the matter with Police. Therefore, Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of complainant.

12                                            Moreover, plea taken by OPs that complainant is not the real owner of car in question has no legs to stand

cc no.323 of 2017

upon as vehicle in question was insured by complainant from OP and Ex C-9 report regarding verification made by District Transport Officer, Faridkot over letter written by complainant clearly proves that RC of vehicle in question is in the name of complainant. Moreover, EX C-10 copy of transfer of Registration Certificate pertaining to car in question shows that registration of said car is in the name of complainant. Reasons forwarded by Ops for not allowing the claim of complainant are not plausible and their action in denying payment of claim on baseless grounds is not appropriate and genuine, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

13                                            From the above discussion and case law produced by the complainant, we are of considered opinion that complainant immediately reported the matter with Police and lodged FIR with Police and also intimated Ops and Ops cannot deny the payment of insurance claim of vehicle of complainant on the ground that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Act of Ops in denying the payment of claim amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the arguments, evidence and case law produced by complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP is directed to pay the complainant Rs.2,07,500/-i.e insured value of lost vehicle subject to transfer of Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of OP and also to execute other required documents for payment of claim by complainant in favour of opposite party within 30

cc no.323 of 2017

days from the date of receipt of these documents in their favour, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of this order till final realization. OP is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within prescribed period failing which complainants shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 5.03.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                      Member                         President