District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 429/2021.

 Date of Institution:25.08.2021.

Date of Order:25.08.2023.

Dalbir Singh son of Zile Singh, resident of ward No.7, Near bypass Anandpur-Delhi road, Village Kharkhoda, District Sonipat at present residing at H.NO.83, Sector-15A, Faridabad.

                                                          …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, 5C-1-2, Railway Road, Neelam Chowk, Faridabad – 121001 through its Divisional Manager/branch Manager.

                                                                              …Opposite party

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  S.M.Shuaib,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Jatinder Singh, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of Mahindra Balazo bearing registration No. HR-63D-0034, which was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 420703311810004537 and that policy was valid w.e.f. 26.03.2019 to 25.03.2020 and the IDV of the same was Rs.30,40,000/-.  On 09.01.2020, the driver, namely, Rashid went to Dadri (Haryana) for bringing crushed stones and when he reached near village Barmnauli and he stopped his truck on Fauji Dhaba and after taking meals, he slept for while and when he got up in the morning, he found the truck missing.  He contacted the complainant on telephone and informed him regarding the theft of the vehicle.  After that, the complainant went to the police of occurrence and informed the police regarding the  same and FIR No.12 dated 10.01.2020, Police Station Line Par, Bahadurgarh was lodged.  After lodging of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by the police, but the police failed to trace out the vehicle of the complainant.   It was not out of place to mention that the vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 09/10.01.2020 and the driver came to know about the theft, when he woke up to restart his journey for Dadri around 2:30 a.m. (night) on 10.01.2020, on which date the permit of the vehicle in question was valid.  Moreover, the fee for the issuance of the permit had been deposited by the complainant on 09.01.2020 and it would be deemed as the permit was valid from the date of the fee provided the same was rejected.  In the case of the complainant, the permit was granted after depositing fee and the permit was valid on the date of theft of the vehicle in question.  Intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was communicated to the opposite party well in time and the opposite party had appointed Lakshman Dass Arora and Associates as investigator, who investigated the claim as well as theft of the vehicle thoroughly and had obtained all the necessary documents from the complainant.  The vehicle was insured with the office of the opposite party situated at Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa.    The complainant had visited the office of the opposite party at Dabwali time and again for the speedy payment of the genuine claim of the complainant, but the opposite party was avoiding the payment of the claim to the complainant on one pretext or the other and finally on 30.04.2021, a repudiation letter had been sent to the complainant thereby repudiating the claim of the complainant mentioning therein frivolous reasons, which had no sanctity in the eyes of law and the legal and genuine theft claim of the complainant had been arbitrarily and intentionally repudiated with malafide intention.  It was pertinent to mention that the complainant deposited the fee for the permit vide application/receipt No. HR20010982924848/HR63R 20010001011 dated 09.01.2020 for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Commission and subsequently Part-A and B of the permit were issued to the complainant, which were valid on the date of theft as well as till date was valid.  It was not out of place to mention here that no any national permit was required for plying a commercial vehicle in the State in which, it was registered. Point NO.2 in the repudiation letter was regarding misrepresentation of the facts and breach of utmost faith.  The complainant respectfully submitted that there was neither any misrepresentation of the facts nor breach not utmost good faith or violation of any declaration clause on the form.  The permit mentioned in this point in the repudiation letter was issued by the competent authority of the Govt. of Haryana and the same had been got verified by the  opposite party and found the same genuine, then question of earlier permits did not arise at all and the complainant had not supplied any permit, which was effective prior to the date of theft, to the opposite party as mentioned in the repudiation letter under reference. 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)                pay a sum of Rs.30,40,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft i.e.09/10.01.2020.                  

b)                 pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 25,000 /-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 present complaint was not legally maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission as the complainant had failed to pin-point any short or deficient service on the part of the opposite party while rendering insurance services to the complainant in respect of the insurance policy No. 420703311810004537 covering the insurance risk from 26.03.2019 to 25.03.2020 issued for vehicle No. HR-63D-0034.  Upon receipt of the claim intimation letter on 15.01.2020in respect of the stolen vehicle, the concerned office appointed M/s. Lakshman Dass Arora and Associates to investigate the theft of the insured vehicle, as was clear from the claim intimation letter.  Thereafter the complainant submitted the motor claim form in respect of the insured vehicle.  As per procedure, M/s. Lakshman Dass Arora and Associates handed over a letter dated 20.1.2020 to the complainant insured for submitting the required documents as detailed in the letter dated 20.01.2020.  It was worth mentioning here that upon receipt of the letter, the complainant put his signature thereon, M/s. Lakshman Dass Arora and Associates submitted the Motor Theft Claim Investigation report under reference No. 18/20 dated 04.03.2020 on 11.03.2020.  Thereafter the opposite party insurer processed the theft claim whereby it was noted that the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the theft claim was found to be no payable for the following reasons:

i.                 Violation of limitation as to use clause of commercial vehicle package policy and violation of Section 66(1) of M.V.Act.

a)                 As per vehicle history report downloaded online from govt. site. The permit NO. HR2020NP0822A had been issued on 20.01.2020 and was valid from 20.01.2020 and was valid from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2025.  So the permit was not valid on the date of theft i.e. 09.01.2020.

b)                As per Permit Verification Report issued by RTA  Bhadurgarh, Permit No. HR2020NP0822A         was valid from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2025 and permit authorization NO. HR2020-NP-AUTH-2029A was valid from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2021.  So, the permit as well as its authorization was not valid on the date of theft i.e. night of 09.01.2020.

The use of a transport vehicle in public place without a valid and effective permit constitutes violation of Section 66 (1)of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and also “Limitations As to Use’ of the Motor Policy.

ii.                Misrepresentation of facts and breach of utmost good faith and violation of declaration clause of claim form.

The complainant insured concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the insurance company by submitting the different copy of  permit and permit authorization viz;

a)                One unnumbered permit shows validity of permit from 03.05.2018 ato 01.05.2023, and the permit name of the area/state for which it was valid was not mentioned, in both Part A and Part B.  So the permit without any number was not genuine.

b)                One copy of permit No.. N.P.PU.C. No.05/NP/2020 submitted  by the insured with the opposite party insurer, was showing validity from 10.01.2020 to 01.05.2023.  In permit, name of the area/state for which it was valid was not mentioned in Part A and in Part B.  Further there was cutting in validity of period in both Part A and Part B.

c)                As per permit authorization No. NP/HR/63/052019/106710 dated 31.05.2019 mentions the National permit was valid from  31.05.2019 to 01.05.2020 and local permit was shown validity from 10.10.2020 to 01.05.2023 which was unusual.

d)                As per Permit verification Report issued by RTA BHADURGARH, Permit No. HR2020NP0822A was valid from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2025 and permit authorization No. HR-2020-NP-Auth-2529A was valid from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2021.

By submitting different permits of same vehicle as mentioned above, the insured violated the “Utmost Good Faith” declaration in claim Form.  In terms of the contents of the declaration signed by the insured in the claim form, the claim was noted for its repudiation.

                   Upon processing the theft, claim of the insured, the matter was put before General Manager of the opposite party insurer, whereby the theft claim of the complainant was recommended for its repudiation and accordingly the competent authority concluded for repudiating the theft claim of the complainant on 01.04.2021.  Accordingly, the thet claim of the complainant was repudiated and the repudiation letter dated 30.04.2021 was sent to the insured under reference No.. 420703/claims/2020.

 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–M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.. with the prayer to: a) pay a sum of Rs.30,40,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft i.e.09/10.01.2020.   b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c)  pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                    The learned counsel for the complainant has made a statement that the complaint alongwith documents already filed by the complainant be read as evidence on behalf of the complainant and closed the same. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the complainant had been closed vide order dated 22.08.2022. The photocopy of E-Fee receipt,, letter dated 19.01.2021, repudiation letter dated 30.04.2021

                    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  Shri Rameshwar Dass, Administrative Officer, M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 5C-1& 2, BP Railway Road, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 – insurance policy, Ex.R-2 – Claim intimation letter,, Ex.R-3 – Motor claim form, Ex.R-4 – letter dated 20.01.2020, Ex.R-5  (colly) – Motor Theft Claim investigation report, Ex.R-6 – photocopies of permits, Ex.R-7 – Authorization Certificate of N.P.(Goods), Ex.R-8 – photocopy of note to General Manager, Ex.R-9 – repudiation letter.

6.                In this case, the complainant was the owner of Mahindra Balazo bearing registration No. HR-63D-0034, which was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 420703311810004537 and that policy was valid w.e.f. 26.03.2019 to 25.03.2020 and the IDV of the same was Rs.30,40,000/-.  On 09.01.2020, the driver, namely, Rashid went to Dadri (Haryana) for bringing crushed stones and when he reached near village Barmnauli and he stopped his truck on Fauji Dhaba and after taking meals, he slept for while and when he got up in the morning, he found the truck missing.  He contacted the complainant on telephone and informed him regarding the theft of the vehicle.  The complainant lodged complaint with Police Station Line Par, Bahadurgarh bearing FIR No. 12 dated 10.01.2020. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by the police, but the police failed to trace out the vehicle of the complainant.  The vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 09/10.01.2020 and the driver came to know about the theft, when he woke up to restart his journey for Dadri around 2:30 a.m. (night) on 10.01.2020, on which date the permit of the vehicle in question was valid.  Moreover, the fee for the issuance of the permit had been deposited by the complainant on 09.01.2020 and it would be deemed as the permit was valid from the date of the fee provided the same was rejected.  In the case of the complainant, the permit was granted after depositing fee and the permit was valid on the date of theft of the vehicle in question.  Intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was communicated to the opposite party well in time and the opposite party had appointed Lakshman Dass Arora and Associates as investigator, who investigated the claim as well as theft of the vehicle thoroughly and had obtained all the necessary documents from the complainant.  The vehicle was insured with the office of the opposite party situated at Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa.    The complainant had visited the office of the opposite party at Dabwali time and again for the speedy payment of the genuine claim of the complainant, but the opposite party was avoiding the payment of the claim to the complainant on one pretext or the other.  Opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 30.04.2021 vide Ex.R-9.

7.                After going through the evidence led by parties, the Commission is of the opinion  that   the complainant deposited the fee for the permit vide application/receipt No. HR20010982924848/HR63R 20010001011 dated 09.01.2020 and subsequently Part-A and B of the permit were issued to the complainant, which were valid on the date of theft as well as till date was valid. Point NO.2 in the repudiation letter was regarding misrepresentation of the facts and breach of utmost faith.  There was neither any misrepresentation of the facts nor breach not utmost good faith or violation of any declaration clause on the form.  The permit mentioned in this point in the repudiation letter was issued by the competent authority of the Govt. of Haryana and the same had been got verified by the  opposite party and found the same genuine.

8.                Keeping in view of the above submission ,the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to process the claim of the complainant within 30 days  from the date of receipt of the copy of order and pay the  IDV value  to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint  till its realization.  The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 25.08.2023                                  (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.