District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 238/2022..
Date of Institution: 02.05.2022.
Date of Order: 03.10.2022.
Dhanajay Pandey S/o Sh. Shyam Narayan Pandey r/o House No.660, Gali No.3, Jawahar Colony, Badkhal, Faridabad, Haryana – 121005. Mob. No. 8882781344.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, 5C/1-2, B.P.Railway Road, Neelam Chowk, Faridabad – 121001.
…Opposite parties……
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. Chander Kaushik, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anuj Gupta, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of a vehicle M/cycle marka Splendor Plus, colour black silver bearing its registration NO. HR87-F-0815. The complainant was using the said vehicle for conveyance purposes for himself as well as for his other family members. The above said vehicle was got insured by the complainant form the opposite party/opposite party vide insurance policy No. 39010231206201133114 valid w.e.f 14.01.2021 to 13.01.2026 for IDV value of Rs.60,762/-. On 04.10.2021 the complainant and his friend Sanjeet Kumar who driving the aforesaid vehicle, at about the complainant and his friend on their job at 8:30 a.m. by driving the aforesaid vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle was parked in plot NO. 369. When the complainant returning his job at about 5:00p.m. then the complainant saw the aforesaid vehicle complainant was not there. The aforesaid vehicle had been stolen by unknown person. The complainant was the owner of aforesaid vehicle – Splendor plus, colour black silver, Regd. NO. HR87-F-0815, chassis NO. MBLHAW11XLHL21687, Engine No. HA11EVLH122215. The complainant immediately moved complaint before the police of Police Station Mujessar, requesting them to trace out the aforesaid vehicle and the police of P.s. of Mujessar registered a FIR No. 0666 dated 06.10.2021 under section 380 IPC against unknown person. The police made their investigations and finally they issued the untraced report regarding the stolen of aforesaid vehicle on 04.03.2022 and the same was submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Shri Mahender Singh, JMIC, Faridabad. The opposite party also made their investigation through their surveyor/investigator who visited the complainant and got many statement recorded and they also obtained the signatures of the complainant and take all the related documents such R.C.Book, insurance policy cover note etc. from the
complainant and assured him that they would make the payment of the claimed amount to the complainant as early as possible. The complainant himself and his family members visited the opposite party and met with the surveyor of the company who only gave false assurances to the complainant to make the payment of the claim amount after completing their formalities. After elapse of the period of 6 months the opposite party sent a letter dated 31.03.2022 to the complainant wherein the opposite party made false and concocted story to reject the claim of the complainant without any satisfy reason and the opposite party had repudiate/closed the file without passing the claim of complainant. 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) entertain and settle the claim and pay up all the losses i.e. insured amount of Rs.60,762/- alongwith interest to the complainant immediately to avoid form any further mental agony and harassment.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 5500 /-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 got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant was stopped by his own acts, conduct acquisance, admission, commission and waiver from filing the present complaint. It was submitted that the FIR was lodged on 06.10.2021, wherein, alleging theft of motor cycle NO. HR-87-F/0815 on 04.10.2021 which amply proved on record that the complainant had failed to inform police immediately by calling 100 number as well nas get lodged FIR immediately of the alleged occurrence of theft and form
relied upon documents the complainant had failed to intimate the insurance company immediately on the alleged occurrence of theft, in this way FIR was lodged after 2 days and intimation to the answering opposite party was given by the complainant on 05.10.2021, resultantly violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy so issued in this behalf. The present complaint deserves dismissal in view of the settled law that no one can take advantage of his own wrong. As per knowledge derived from the record especially form the statement of complainant, motorcycle in question was remain parked unattended in a vacant plot having no close entrance or security being so easy access of any one (which was gross negligence on the part of insured). Further, as per the case of the complainant it was quite clear from the contents of FIR, that vehicle in question was left unattended without any proper safeguard. Since the complainant was guilty of violating the condition No.4 of the insurance policy. From all these facts, it was crystal clear that the complainant had not properly safeguarded the vehicle as he left it unattended. Further answering opposite party vide letter dated 28.12.2021, 17.02.2022 asked the complainant to submit 100 NO. call detail, Reason of delay in intimation to police and apprised complainant that delay in intimation of theft to police was violation of condition NO.1 of policy, so complainant was requested to explain within15 days why his claim should not be repudiated due to violation of condition NO.1 of policy. But the complainant did not prefer either submit required document or give explanation to answering opposite party. In these circumstances, the answering opposite party was left with no other option except repudiate the claim of the complainant due to delay in intimation of theft to police as well as non submission of any reply by complainant vide No Claim letter dated 31.03.2022. 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) entertain and settle the claim and pay up all the losses i.e. insured amount of Rs.60,762/- alongwith interest to the complainant immediately to avoid form any further mental agony and harassment. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Dhanajay Pandey, Ex.C-1 – No claim letter dated 31.3.2022,, Ex.C-2 – FIR, Ex.C-3 – untraced report, Ex.C-4 – statement of Dhanajay Pandey, Ex.C-5 – untraced report,, Ex.C-6 – Antim report, Ex.C-7 - statement of Dhanajay .
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Mrs. Kavita Yadav, Duly Constitute Attorney of national Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O.II, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.R1 - letter dated 28.12.2021, Ex.R2 – letter dated 17.2.2022, Ex.R-3 – No Claim letter dated 31.03.2022, Ex.R-4 – insurance policy valid from 14.01.2021 to 13.01.2026, Ex.R-5 – Conditions..
6. In this case, the complainant was the registered owner of a vehicle M/cycle marka Splendor Plus, colour black silver bearing its registration NO.
HR87-F-0815. The above said vehicle was insured by the complainant form the opposite party/opposite party vide insurance policy No. 39010231206201133114 valid w.e.f 14.01.2021 to 13.01.2026 for IDV value of Rs.60,762/-. On 04.10.2021 the complainant and his friend Sanjeet Kumar who driving the aforesaid vehicle, at about the complainant and his friend on their job at 8:30 a.m. by driving the aforesaid vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle was parked in plot NO. 369. When the complainant returning his job at about 5:00p.m. then the complainant saw the aforesaid vehicle complainant was not there. The aforesaid vehicle had been stolen by unknown person. Opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Ex.R-3 on the ground that vide letter 28.12.2021, 17.02.2022 asked the complainant to submit 100 No. call details, reason of delay in intimation to police and apprised complainant that delay intimation of theft to police was violation of condition No.1 of policy, so complainant was requested to explain within 15 days why this claim should not be repudiated due to violation of condition No.1 of the policy vide letter dated 31.03.2022.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
8. 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 50%. 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.
9. 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.60,762.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.59,762.00
Deduction 15% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 8,964.00
Total : Rs. 50,798.00
10 The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,798/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. 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 35A. 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: 03.10.2022 (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.
