DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 103 of 24.3.2017
Decided on: 13.4.2018
Jaspreet Singh about 30 years son of S.Bhagwant Singh, resident of House No.625, ward No.4, Guru Nanak Nagar, Nalas Road, Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional office: SCO-332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office: Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala through its Divisional Market
- National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Motor claim Hub, R.O. Cell(DO-1) Near Atam Park, Link Road, Ludhiana-141001 through its Manager.
- R.P. Verma, Agent Divisional Office: Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.D.S.Behgal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Alok Mathur,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Jaspreet Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) .
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle make Truck LPT 2518 TC bearing registration No.PB-11-BR-8911, having engine No.84031854 and chassis No.55539. He got the same insured with the OPs vide policy No.401400/31/15/6300000931 for the period from 26.6.2015 to 25.6.2016 with the IDV of Rs.11 lac. It is stated that on the intervening night of 27/28.1.2016, the alleged truck/tralla was stolen from Nalas Road, Rajpura. The intimation about the incident was immediately given to the police who visited at the spot on 28.1.2016. After conducting of enquiry, FIR No.0023 dated 5.2.2016 under Section 379 IPC was lodged with P.S.city, Rajpura. Copy of FIR alongwith other documents were supplied to the OPs. Lateron the OPs appointed an Investigator, who obtained the signature of the complainant and other persons on various papers without disclosing the contents of the documents. The Police of P. S. City, Rajpura filed untraceable report dated 8.5.2016, which was duly accepted by the Hon’ble Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, on 10.9.2016.The complainant received letter dated 13.9.2016 from the OPs demanding certain documents, which were supplied by the complainant vide letter dated 29.9.2016 and were received by the OPs’ office at Ludhiana vide diary No.709 dated 29.9.2016.Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dated 16.12.2016 for the disbursement of the amount but all in vain. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 2.3.2017 upon the OPs requesting them to release the claim amount alongwith interest 18% per annum but the OPs after receipt of the notice repudiated the claim vide letter dated 8.3.2017 on the basis that there was delay of 8 days in giving information to the police authorities as well as of two days to the OPs. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused metal agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to release the amount of claim i.e. Rs.11lac alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of theft till realization; to pay Rs.1lac as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant; to pay Rs.11000/-as costs of litigation. Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit may also be granted.
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared and filed their written versions taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, is admitted policy bearing No.401400/31/15/6300000931 was issued in the name of the complainant for the period from 26.6.2015 to 25.6.2016. It is stated that as per intimation letter dated 29.1.2016, the vehicle reported to have stolen on 27/28.1.2016. Intimation to the police authorities was given after 8 days of theft as per FIR No.23 dated 5.2.2016. Letter was issued to the complainant on 13.9.2016 asking him for clarifications/comments as to why his claim should be entertained in view of gross violation of policy condition No.1.The OPs received the reply vide letter dated 29.9.2016 of the complainant regarding delay in intimation , which was not satisfactory as the same was not supported by any documentary proof. As there was delay in intimation of 8 days to the police authorities and two days in intimation to the OPs regarding the theft of the alleged vehicle, the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 8.3.2017.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other allegations going against the OPs it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In the written version filed by Op no.4,preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that complaint is not maintainable against him and has been dragged unnecessarily into uncalled for litigations; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; the complaint is totally false concocted misleading grounds against OP No.4 and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that insurance policy JNo.401400/31/15/6300000931 was issued on behalf of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. in the name of Jaspreet Singh for the period from 26.6.2015 to 25.6.2015.OP no.4 has no power to pass the claim or to repudiate the claim, as he is not the dealing authority of the case in question. There is no deficiency of service on the part of Op no.4. After denying all other allegations going against Op no.4, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Jain, Sr. Divn. Manager, NIC, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.R.P.Verma, Asstt. Manager, NIC, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh. Kashmir Singh of Royal Associates, Ex.OPD affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar, approved investigator alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP11 and closed the evidence of the OPs .
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that there was delay of eight days in informing the police and two days in informing the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle in question. Thus the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 8.3.2017, Ex.C14. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on the intervening night of 27/28.1.2016. He orally informed the insurance company immediately after the theft of his vehicle and also in writing on the next day i.e. on 29.1.2016, as is mentioned in the repudiation letter dated 8.3.2017, Ex.C14. He further submitted that on 28.1.2016, that the complainant informed the police about the theft of his vehicle and the police officials visited and inspected the spot. The complainant also made efforts to locate his vehicle with the help of the police officials, who after conducting enquiry, lodged the FIR on 5.2.2016 on the statement given by the complainant. As such, there is no delay either in informing the police authority or the insurance company. He further argued that if there is any delay even then the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim merely on the ground of delay because the principal of law has already laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the decision of the insurer to reject claim has to be based on valid grounds-rejection of the claim on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of the policy in the insurance industry. If reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claim, which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which have been otherwise proved to be genuine.
7. In the present case the vehicle in question was stolen on the intervening night of 27/28.1.2016. From the copy of Investigation report, it is evident that the Investigator had opined that date, time and place of theft seems to be genuine. The untraced report, Ex.C4 with regard to the vehicle has also been placed on record. The same has been accepted by SDM, Patiala, vide order dated 10.9.2016, Ex.C5. From the repudiation letter dated 8.3.2017, it is evident that complainant informed the insurance company on 29.1.2016 i.e. the next day from the occurrence of the incidence. From the copy of the FIR,Ex.C3, it is evident that same was got registered on 5.2.2016. No doubt there is delay of five days in lodging the FIR with the police but at the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that the complainant has given the cogent reason for the said delay.Be that as it may, we hold that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), (supra) , the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. In the copy of insurance document,Ex.C2, the IDV of the impugned vehicle has been found mentioned as Rs.11,00,000/- .Thus, the OPs No.1to 3 are liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/-.They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. So far the deficiency of service on the part of Op No. 4 is concerned, neither any specific allegation has been leveled against him nor proved, therefore, complaint filed against OP No.4 is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed against OP No.4 is dismissed and the same is allowed against OPs No.1to 3. The OPs No.1to 3 are directed in the following manner:-
- To pay Rs. 11,00,000/- i.e. the IDV of the vehicle in question as mentioned in the policy document,Ex.C2 alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 8.3.2017 till its realization;
- To pay Rs.7000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation expenses.
The OPs No.1 to 3 are further directed to comply the said order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 13.4.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
