District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 107/2022.
Date of Institution: 24.02.2022.
Date of Order:09.05.2023.
Bharat Lal S/o Shri Khillu at present resident of House NO. 208, Nehru colony, No.3, NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana) and earlier address: House No. B4/96, Aya Nagar, New Delhi, South Delhi District..
…….Complainant……..
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd., Neelam ITI road, NIT, Faridabad through its Divisional Manager.
…Opposite party
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.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Kirpa Ram , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of vehicle-Mahindra Bolero Maxitruck bearing its registration No. FL-01L-T-2645 which was insured with the opposite party vide certificate –cum-policy bearing No. 361100311910003541 valid from 17.11.2019 to 16.11.2020 for the sum insured amount of Rs.2,81,250/- . On 24.02.2020 at about 6.—pm, the son-in-law i.e. Inderpal who drive the above said vehicle parked the same near Masjid Chowk at Nehru Colony, NIT, Faridabad and when the next morning i.e.25.02.2020 at about 5.00a.m., the complainant saw that vehicle was not found at parked place as the same had been stolen by someone. The complainant and his son-in-law tried to trace out the same but the same could not find anywhere and thereafter the complainant reported the matter with P.S.Dabua Faridabad, on the complaint of the complainant, FIR NO. 100 dated 25.2.2020 registered under section 379 of IPC in the Police Station – Dabua, Faridabad. Thereafter the complainant intimated the opposite party within time. As per requirement, the complainant submitted all required documents with the opposite party but the opposite party vide letter dated 09.06.2020 asked to submit some documents which were later on produced/submitted by the complainant alongwith untraced report but the opposite party till date not release the insured amount by taking one and another excuses. The complainant sent legal notice dated 11.01.2022 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. 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) make the payment of the insured amount of Rs.2,81,250/- of the vehicle-Mahindra Bolero Maxitruck bearing its registration No. DL-01L-T-2645
immediately to the complainant alongwith 18% p.a interest from the date of policy till its realization.
b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint. After repeated request, the complainant could not complete the formalities and not submit the documents to the office of answering opposite party. In this regard a letter dated 09.06.2020 was given to the complainant for submitting the following documents (i) Purchase bill, (ii) NOC and Form-35, (iii) Fitness certificate, (iv) Road tax, (v) NCRB letter with POD slip, (vi) UID card of last uses, but the complainant could not submitted the said documents and not fulfilled the said quarries, so he was not entitled for any claim form the answering opposite party. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–National Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) make the payment of the insured amount of Rs.2,81,250/- of the vehicle-Mahindra Bolero Maxitruck bearing its registration No. DL-01L-T-2645 immediately to the complainant alongwith 18% p.a interest from the date of policy till its realization. b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Bharat Lal, Ex.CW-2- FIR, Ex.CW-3 (colly) untraced report, Ex.CW-4 – antim report, Ex.CW-5 – RC, Ex.CW-6 – legal notice, Ex.Cw-7 – postal receipt. Ex.CW-8 – insurance policy valid from 17.11.2019 to 16.11.2020, Ex.CW-9 – letter dated 09.06.2020 regarding required documents, Ex.CW-10 – not readable, Ex.CW-11 – No Objection certificate, Ex.CW-12 – Aadhaar card.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW!/A – affidavit of Shri Rameshwar Dass, Administrating Officer, National Insurance Co. ltd., Faridabad, Ex.R-1 to 3 - letters regarding supply the required documents, Ex.R-4 – letter dated 09.06.2020, Ex.R-5 – Final reminder dated 02.07.2020, Ex.R-6 – Non Cooperation Report,
6. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
7. 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 25%. 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.
8. 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 vehicle : Rs.2,81,250.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.2,80,250.00
Deduction 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 70,062.50
Total : Rs. 2,10,187.50
9. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,10,187.50/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, subject to submission of documents
. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 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 35. 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: 09.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
