Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/24

M/s Shiv Home Packers & Mover - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Gupta

29 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  24 dated 18.01.2023.                               Date of decision: 29.08.2024. 

 

M/s. Shiv Home Packers & Mover, Plot No.2908/4, Ist Foor, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Jale Singh son of Dhanpat Singh. 9988199063.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office: 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071 through its Managing Director/Director.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Chowk Kesar Ganj, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Bolero Pick Up bearing No.PB-10-DZ-9205 which was got insured from the OPs vide policy No.406020/31/21/10000161. The complainant stated that his vehicle was stolen and an FIR No.11 dated 22.01.2022 Under Section 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Division No.2, Ludhiana against unknown person. As the police failed to recover the vehicle and as such, submitted untraced report which was accepted by the court of Ms. Supreet Kaur, JMIC, Ludhiana in National Lok Adalat on 12.11.2022. The complainant lodged a claim with the OPs. Earlier the OPs sent a letter dated 24.01.2022 to the complainant for submitting copy of FIR, copy of RC and duly filled claim form which were submitted by the complainant with them. Further the OPs sent letter dated 14.03.2022 demanding more documents which were also supplied to them but the OPs did not disbursed the claim rather sent letter dated 11.11.2022 demanding fitness certificate and tax certificate as on the date of loss i.e. 21.10.2022 which is not required in case of theft of the vehicle. According to the complainant, the OPs are lingering on the matter by sending false and frivolous letters to avoid disbursal of claim which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which the complainant is entitled to compensation. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to disburse the claim amount of Rs.1,92,500/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, punitive damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; lack of jurisdiction; the complainant being estopped by his own act and conduct; concealment of material facts etc. The OPs stated that the complainant lodged the claim regarding theft of Bolero Pick up bearing registration No.PN-10-DZ-9205 and immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. Mr. Zora Singh Deol, Investigator was deputed for investigation of the matter, who collected documents, recorded statement and submitted his investigation report dated 15.02.2022 with them. After receipt of investigation report along with documents, the claim file of the complainant was scrutinized by their competent authority and it was found that the complainant has not submitted fitness certificate and tax certificate of the vehicle covering the date of loss. The OPs requested the complainant to submit the said documents vide letter dated 11.11.2022 and second reminder dated 21.11.2022 but the complainant failed to submit said documents. Even third reminder cum last notice dated 04.01.2023 was sent to the complainant but again the said documents were not submitted by the complainant and his claim file was closed as “No Claim”. The OPs further stated that the complainant himself has admitted in the complaint that they are not having fitness certificate and tax certificate and as such, the claim is not payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy.

                             On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, Sh. Zale Singh, Proprietor of the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of RC, Ex. C2 is  the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C3 is the copy of FIR, Ex. C4 is the copy of untraced report, Ex. C5 is the copy of order dated 12.11.2022 of the Hon’ble Court, Ex. C6 is the copy of letter dated 24.01.2022, Ex. C7 is the copy of letter dated 14.03.2022, Ex. C8 is the copy of letter dated 11.11.2022, Ex. C9 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Zale Singh and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit  Ex. RA/1 of Ms. Rachna Puri, Divisional Manager of the OPs as well as affidavit Ex. RW2/A of Sh. Zora Singh Deol, Investigator along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of third reminder dated 04.01.2023, Ex. R2 is the copy of second reminder dated 21.11.2022, Ex. R3 is the copy of status of the vehicle, Ex. R4 is the copy of letter dated 11.11.2022, Ex. R5 is the copy of untraced report, Ex. R6 is the copy of order dated 19.09.2022 of Ms. Supreet Kaur, JMIC, Ludhiana, Ex. R7 is the copy of letter dated 13.09.2022 of the complainant, Ex. R8 is the copy of vehicle enquiry report dated 06.09.2022, Ex. R9 is the copy of letter dated 25.04.2022, Ex. R10 is the copy of RC, Ex. R11 is the copy of NOC dated 05.02.2021 issued by of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Ex. R12 is the copy of investigation report, Ex. R13 is the copy of statement of Jale Singh, Ex. R14 is the copy of statement of Gobind Kumar Singh, Ex. R15 is the copy of statement of Kuldip Singh and Balram Sharma, Ex. R16 is the copy of PAN Card of Jale Singh, Ex. R17 is the copy of claim form, Ex. R18 is the copy of insurance policy and closed the evidence.                

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.                 

6.                Undisputably, a vehicle make Mahindra Bolero Pick-up bearing registration No.PB-10-DZ-9205 owned by the complainant was stolen on 21.01.2022 when the same was parked at Rampal Dyeing, Pot No.216, Ind. Area A, Ludhiana. Prompt intimation to the police lead to the registration of FIR No.0011 dated 22.01.2022 (Ex. C3). The claim was also lodged and the OPs deputed Mr. Zora Singh Deol, who vide his report Ex. R12 found the claim of theft of the complainant to be genuine and made the following conclusion:-

                   “CONCLUSION

1. The Co. insured the said vehicle for the period 18/01/2022 to 17/01/2023.
2. The current policy is a continuous renewal of the previous policy.
3. The said vehicle stolen on 21/01/2022 whist it was lying parked near Rampal Dyeing factory, situated at 216, Indl. Area A, Ludhiana. On 20/01/2022, in the evening, the insured’s driver parked the vehicle there and went to his residence. The next morning when he went there, he found the vehicle stolen by some unknown persons.
4. The vehicle was locked at the time of its theft as informed by the insured.
5. The police registered the FIR and it was verified by me as a genuine one.
6. R/C has been verified online and the report attached.
7. The insured informed the Distt. Authorities about theft of the vehicle.
8. My investigation confirms the theft of the insured vehicle.
9. IDV of the insured vehicle is at Rs.192500/-.
10.  Excess Clause is at Rs.500/-.”

 

On receipt of report Ex. R12, the OPs called the complainant to submit the documents like “valid fitness & tax certificate as at the date of loss i.e. 21.10.2022” vide letters Ex. R1, Ex. R2 and Ex. R4. The OPs also produced on record vehicle search document Ex. R3 vide which the fitness of the vehicle was valid up to 24.07.2015 and tax was valid up to 30.09.2018.

7.                The counsel for the OPs contended that the claim of the complainant was closed being “No Claim” due to non submission of  valid fitness certificate as well as tax certificate of the vehicle as at the date of loss i.e. 21.10.2022. The counsel for the complainant refuted the contentions of the OPs by stating that the OPs have wrongly closed the claim on flimsy grounds and the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on sound logic and valid grounds.

8.                Now the question arises whether the claim can be repudiated in toto for non submission of the documents.

9.                In this case, the claim of the complainant has been closed as “No Claim” by the OPs due to non-submission of valid fitness certificate as well as valid tax certificate of the vehicle in question. In this regard, reference can be made to the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Suresh Kumar 2017(2) CPJ 122 passed by Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, whereby it has been held that the repudiation of claim in case of theft on the ground that on the date of theft, registration certificate and fitness certificate were not valid is not correct as these documents are not contributory factors for the theft. It has further been held in this case that as per the insurance cover the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company and the FIR was also registered and Judicial Magistrate First Class  accepted the untraced report. It was further held that  the repudiation letter issued by the insurance company amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rasul Mohammadbhai Akbarbahi Mirza in 2002(1) CPJ 244 of Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, whereby it has been held that the repudiation of the claim in respect of theft of an auto rickshaw, duly insured with insurance company due to non production of fitness certificate of rickshaw on date of loss is not a valid ground for repudiation.

10.              Further reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

As per insurance policy Ex. C2 = Ex. R18 the total IDV value of the vehicle has been mentioned as Rs.1,92,500/-. However, it was the duty of the OPs to assess the loss even when the documents were not submitted to them. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are directed to OPs to reimburse the insurance claim of the complainant to the extent of 75% of the of Rs.1,92,500/- on non-standard basis.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OPs to reimburse the insurance claim of the complainant to the extent of 75% of the of Rs.1,92,500/- on non-standard basis, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till date of its actual payment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.  

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:29.08.2024.

Gobind Ram.