Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/525/2011

Sita Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajeev Anand & sandeep Kumar

12 Sep 2012

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IIPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 525 of 2011
1. Sita RamR/o vPO Khudian Gulab singh, Distt. Mukatsar. Pb. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd,through its Managing Director 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata.2. National Insurance Co. Ltd, SCO 337/340, Sector 35/C, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager.3. National Insurance Co. Ltd,SCO 107, New Grain Market, Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa, HR. through its Branch Manager. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Rajeev Anand & sandeep Kumar, Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 12 Sep 2012
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

[Consumer Complaint Case No: 525 of 2011]

 

--------------------------------

              Date of Institution : 15.11.2011

                   Date  of Decision   : 12.09.2012

--------------------------------

                                     

 

Sita Ram son of Sh. Jagan Nath, resident of V.P.O. Khudian Gulab Singh, District Mukatsar (Punjab).

 

                                  ---Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]  National Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata.

 

[2]  National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 337/340, Sector 35-C Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager.

 

[3]  National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 107, New Grain Market, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana, through its Branch Manager.

 

---Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA           PRESIDENT

         MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

         SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU     MEMBER

 

 

Argued By:    None for the Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

         

    

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the Complainant owned a vehicle Mahindra Bolero XLS Jeep bearing Registration No. PB-30-F-0316, having Engine No.GA94D45653 and Chassis No. 92D83649, registered in his name, vide registration dated 16.4.2009, in the office of DTO Muktsar (Annexure C-1).  This vehicle of the Complainant was got insured with the Opposite Parties vide Police No. 420700/31/09/6100000120.

 

        The vehicle in question was taken by Sh. Lalit Jain, r/o Chandigarh, who is friend of the Complainant and that on the intervening night of 11/12 Feb., 2010, this vehicle was got stolen, while the same was parked in front of House No. 1087/2, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh. An F.I.R. was registered by Sh. Lalit Jain, vide F.I.R. No. 47, dated 12.2.2010 at P.S. Sector 39, Chandigarh (Annexure C-2). It is also mentioned that as the documents of the vehicle were lying in the dash board of the vehicle, so the same too got stolen with the vehicle.

 

        The Complainant on his part also informed the Manager of the Opposite Party Mandi Dabwali Branch in writing on proper receipt dated 12.2.2010, intimating the theft of the vehicle PB-30-F-0316 (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the Complainant made repeated visits to the office of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, who claimed that the case of the Complainant is under process. The Complainant in the meanwhile gave a letter dated 27.4.2010, reiterating his request, for the settlement of the claim.

 

        The Complainant claims that the Opposite Parties raised various requirements from time to time and the Complainant supplied the required information with regard to the NCRB status through a copy dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure C-4) and furthermore, also satisfied the queries raised by the Opposite Parties, through his letter dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure C-5). The Complainant, while replying to the query about the wrong mention of the name of the father of the Complainant in the insurance policy, claims that the necessary corrections were got done in the invoice dated 16.4.2009, and an affidavit to this effect dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure C-7) was submitted along with the copy of the sale letter (Annexure C-6). The Complainant claims that the necessary endorsement in the policy document about the name of the Complainant’s father was left out due to inadvertence.

        The Opposite Party was supplied with a copy of untraceable report from the Court of JMIC, recorded vide order dated 18.12.2010 (Annexure C-8). The Opposite Parties further demanded details regarding the claim of the stolen vehicle through their letter dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure C-9), which was duly replied by the Complainant; vide his letter 9.2.2011 (Annexure C-10).

 

        The Complainant claims that he was called to the office of Opposite Party No. 3 for the final settlement of the claim and was offered to accept 75% of the IDV as full and final settlement of his claim to which the Complainant gave a consent letter dated 30.3.2011 (Annexure C-11). On not finding any action on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 18.4.2011 (Annexure C-12) and the Opposite Parties thereafter, repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide their letter dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure C-13).  Complainant aggrieved of the wrongful repudiation of his genuine claim has preferred the present complaint, claiming the following relief: - 

[a]    to direct the Opposite Parties to make good the claim in respect of theft of the vehicle, which is repudiated by unfair trade practice.

[b]    to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the claim amount to be paid along with interest @18% p.a. from the date the same became due, till the date of realization;

[c]    to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mammoth mental tension and harassment and also on account of intangible overhead expenses incurred by the Complainant in pursuing the case;

[c]    to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-;

 

        The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by his detailed affidavit.

 

2.      The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is misconceived, untenable as no cause of action arose in favour of the Complainant to file the present complaint against the answering Opposite Parties.

 

        The Opposite Parties have also raised a specific objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and try the present Complaint, as the policy was issued by Mandi Dabwali Branch of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant being a resident of District Muktsar (Punjab), thus, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this score alone.

 

        The Opposite Parties claim that the intimation of the theft of the vehicle in question was received at their end on 19.4.2010 in the office of Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure R-2) and the copy of insurance policy is annexed at Annexure R-1. As the Complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, including the condition no.1, which stipulates the immediate intimation to the insurance company, is to be given, in case of loss of vehicle and as the vehicle was stolen on 11.2.2010, and intimation of the claim is on 20.4.2010, thus, there is an inordinate delay of more than two months. This act of the Complainant has prevented and deprived the Opposite Parties to investigate the alleged theft and to make efforts to recover the vehicle. The Opposite Parties have cited the case title NIA Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, decided on 9.12.2009 by the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein a delay of 09 days in reporting the matter of theft, to the insurance company, has been held as violation of the terms and conditions. The Opposite Parties have categorically denied the receipt of letter dated 12.2.2010.

 

        The Opposite Parties claim that the concerned office deputed an investigator to investigate the case of the Complainant. A copy of investigation report dated 12.8.2010 is annexed as Annex.R-3. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties on the basis of the investigations and findings by the investigator repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide their communication dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure R-4) and thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, pray for the dismissal of the present complaint, as the Complainant has himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy.    

 

        On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.  

 

        The reply of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 is duly verified and supported by short affidavit of Sh. O.P. Makkar, Senior Branch Manager.  

 

3.      The Complainant has filed his replication to the written statement submitted by the Opposite Parties, which is duly verified. The Complainant has asserted the averments of his complaint, again, through his replication.

 

4.      As the Complainant failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 30.08.2012, the arguments of the counsel for the Opposite Parties were heard. Hence, in the absence of the Complainant, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 30.08.2012.

5.      Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

 

6.      While dealing with the objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at the very onset, we are of the view that the vehicle in question was got stolen within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Sector 39 Chandigarh and F.I.R. too was got registered at this Police Station under No. 47 dated 20.2.2010. Thus as partial cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant with in the territorial jurisdiction of this the Forum. Hence this Forum certainly has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint. Hence the objection in this regard is ignored.                         

 

7.     We have perused the present complaint and the documents annexed with it. The Opposite Parties have categorically objected to the receipt of Annexure C-3 the intimation letter claimed by the Complainant to have been submitted at Mandi Dabwali office of the Opposite Parties. This document is shown to have been received by an official of the Opposite Parties under his signatures of even date, as well as with official seal bearing the code 420703 of the Mandi Dabwali office of the Opposite Parties.  There are other documents too that the complainant claims to have submitted and the Opposite Parties had received the same, at their end and all these too bear a similar seal and signature, as is found appended on Annexure C-3. These documents are Annexure C-3A, Annexure C-5, Annexure C-6, Annexure C-7, Annexure C-8, Annexure C-10 and Annexure C-11. We find no reason to believe the version of the Opposite Parties in this context as there is no specific and cogent evidence from the official of Mandi Dabwali office of the Opposite Parties to refute the receipt of this document. The version of the Opposite Parties though supported by the affidavit of Shri O.P. Makkar, Branch Manager of the Mandi Dabwali Office of the Opposite Parties is not specific and categorical in its denial about it as their version/Reply does not mention that the signatures as appended on Receipt of Annexure C-3 do not belong to any of their official serving at Mandi Dabwali Branch on the 12.02.2010 when this document was purported to have been submitted at their office by the complainant. Hence, in the absence of a specific denial to this effect and documents to support the same, we feel that the document Annexure C-3 is genuine and irrefutable. Hence, the objections of the Opposite Party about the timely intimation of the theft of the vehicle are out rightly ignored. Thus the complainant has in no manner breached the clause 1 of the policy document as there is no delay in intimating the Opposite Parties about the theft of the vehicle in question.    

8.      The second objection of the Opposite Parties with regard to the vehicle being used by different people and as such the complainant having violated the condition No. 4 of the insurance policy. However the fact about the vehicle being given to his friend Mr. Lalit Jain S/O Kimat Rai Jain R/O Chandigarh, is admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint. The relevant Clause 4 reads as under:-

The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle  or any part thereof or any Driver or Employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended with out proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.  

 

        The Opposite Parties have failed to establish this fact, as there is no allegation that the friend, Mr. Lalit Jain who was the custodian of the vehicle at the time of theft had in any manner breached the Condition 4 of the policy by not taking reasonable care in safeguarding the vehicle from theft. Even the Report of the Investigator in its Para 6 (1)      clearly mentions that “It is concluded that the case of theft of Bolero Jeep No. PB-30F-0316 IS Genuine”. The Investigator had in fact verified the F.I.R. No. 47/2010 by visiting the PS Sector 39, Chandigarh. The theft of the original documents along with the vehicle, too, is confirmed by the investigator hence we do not find any merit in the objection about the complainant having violated the Condition 4 of the policy document.                                                       

9.      The complainant has clearly dealt with the objection about the difference in father’s name of the Complainant, with the help of documents tendered by him i.e. Annexure C-1, the duplicate Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question, which was duly investigated and found in order by the Investigator, appointed by the Opposite Parties, by visiting the, DTO, Muktsar, during his investigations. Furthermore, the Complainant while cooperating with the investigation had submitted an affidavit Annexure C-7, to the Investigator, wherein, he has reiterated the fact about the creeping of wrong information with regard to the name of the father of the Complainant.

        The Complainant had claimed that as the original invoice raised by the dealer of the vehicle had initially wrongly mentioned the father’s name of the Complainant as Kishore Chand which was later on got corrected and a new invoice of even date was got made (Annexure C-6) and it was on the basis of this invoice, the registration of the vehicle was made at DTO, Muktsar. However, the required corrections in the insurance policy could not be effected inadvertently.

 

10.     The Complainant through one of his communications dated 9.2.2011 received by the Opposite Parties at their Mandi Dabwali office had raised this issue about the difference in the father’s name of the Complainant (Annexure C-10). A clarification to this effect was tendered by the Complainant on earlier occasion also. Thus, claiming that as the F.I.R. was got lodged with the help of the copy of the insurance policy by the friend of the Complainant, hence, the same name of the father as Kishore Chand was mentioned in the F.I.R. too. The Complainant had already mentioned that the original documents too were stolen with the vehicle, hence, the correct name as mentioned in the registration of the vehicle was not conveyed to the police, and, hence, this discrepancy went unnoticed.                

 

11.     We feel that as there is a provision for making necessary amends in the policy document, as and when such information is made available, to the Opposite Parties, and necessary endorsements are made, on request of the Complainant, by proving that these changes are bonafide in nature, as well as just and lawful, the Opposite Parties do make these amends and endorsements. However, in the present case, even though the Opposite Parties were in the knowledge that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of Sita Ram son of Jagan Nath and this fact has been thoroughly investigated by their Investigator. The Opposite Parties preferred not to help or guide the Complainant so that the situation that the Complainant faced could have been avoided. The Opposite Parties have failed to explain as to why no request from the side of the Complainant was demanded so that the necessary amends could be made in the policy document about the correct name of the father of the Complainant, once this fact was established. Rather the Opposite Parties preferred to hound him even though the original Invoice on the basis of which the Opposite Parties raised the policy document was not his creation. Hence the complainant cannot be blamed for the same and more so the genuine claim of the complainant cannot be denied on such flimsy grounds.    

 

12.     Another issue as raised by the Opposite Parties in their repudiation letter dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure C-13) is with regard to the non-submission of second key of the vehicle with the Opposite Parties by the Complainant. This issue too was addressed by the Complainant, by claiming that he had lost the 2nd key and having failed in locating the same, it could not be submitted to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant claims that this second key was lost much prior to the theft of the vehicle. As the Opposite Parties have failed to establish as to how this issue is in any manner an impediment in settling the claim of the complainant hence this objection too is ignored.  

 

13.     In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they have failed to lay any blame at the door of the Complainant, for any breach of the conditions of the policy. In the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from the side of the Opposite Parties the present complaint deserves to succeed against them. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly & severally, to:-

[a] To settle the claim of the Complainant on the basis of the IDV of the vehicle i.e. 5.51.000/-  along with necessary exclusions, if any;

[b] To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to the Complainant;

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

14.     The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 13 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 15.11.2011, till it is paid.  

 

15.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced  

12th September, 2012

 

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

‘Dutt’

 


MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER