Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 231.
Instituted on : 26.06.2014.
Decided on : 20.07.2017.
Amit Kumar son of Raj Kumar resident of 882/3, Main market Peeli Kothi, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak.
- Rohtak Central Cooperative Bank, Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manjeet Sindhu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.D.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Ms. Lovina Singla, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a new vehicle bearing Temporary Registration no.HR-99-LG-temp. 7061 and the same was got insured with the opposite party and IDV of the vehicle was Rs.942796/-. It is averred that during the period of said insurance policy, on 19.06.2012 the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person in the area of P.S. Bahadurgarh and FIR No.261 dated 29.06.2012 was lodged in PS City, Bahadurgarh. It is averred that the complainant intimated to the opposite party within time about the same and lodged his claim for the said vehicle and submitted all the required documents with the opposite party. It is averred that till date the opposite party has not disbursed the claim amount of said vehicle to the complainant despite his repeated requests and correspondence. It is averred that the vehicle in question was financed from the office of the opposite party No.2 at Rohtak and complainant received the recovery notice issued by opposite party no.2 at his address at Rohtak, so this Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has sought the insured sum of Rs.942796/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses from the opposite party.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant lodged the FIR No.261 dated 20.06.2012 and mentioned in the FIR that Amit Kumar is resident of Bahadurgarh and also stated that vehicle Tata Safari was purchased from Faridabad on 19.06.2012 and vehicle parked in front of his above house and in the morning he saw that vehicle has been stolen by unknown person. It is averred that this vehicle was got insured from NIC, Church Gate Mumbai office, so this Hon’ble Forum at Rohtak has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. It is averred that no intimation in writing was ever given in either office of Mumbai, Faridabad, Bahadurgarh and Rohtak. The complainant has alleged to have sent shown email in the office of NIC Ltd. Mumbai after about six months i.e. on 09.12.2013 even no such email ever received in the office of NIC.Ltd. Mumbai. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle in question was financed by the bank as per the norms/guidelines framed by RBI. It is averred that complainant defaulted in making the payment to the opposite party bank as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, hence, the recovery notice was issued to the complainant by the opposite party bank for the recovery of the amount. It is prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed qua answering opposite party.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B(Amended affidavit) documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.2 has made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf and document Ex.C10 issued by opposite party No.2 be read in evidence and has closed her evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per certificate of insurance Ex.C1, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party No.1 through opposite party no.2 being hypothecated with Rohtak District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the payment was made through cheque No.865125 dated 19.06.2012 and the policy was issued from Faridabad office. As per copy of FIR Ex.C8 dated 20.06.2012 the vehicle in question was got stolen from the house of complainant. As per complainant after the theft, he filed the claim with the opposite party no.1 but the same has not been disbursed to the complainant till date. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 is that the vehicle was insured from Mumbai Office, so this Forum at Rohtak has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant and that the complainant without intimating and submitting his claim and documents in the office of opposite party has directly filed the present complaint. As such complainant is not entitled for any claim. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2015(1)CLT 106 titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “By delaying the information of theft to the police, the insured had acted against the interest of insurer and his violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused which justifies the repudiation of claim by the respondent insurance company”.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, reliance has been placed upon the order dated 23.02.2017 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula titled as Cholamandalam Insurance Company Vs. Narender whereby Hon’ble State Commission has reproduced Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 1[carries on business, or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 1[carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain:
PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 1[carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
And it is held that : “On a plain reading of Section 11 of the Act, 1986 it becomes clear that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, 1986 can be instituted in a District Forum within the limits of whose jurisdiction any one of the three situations contemplated in a provision is shown to exit. The payment of premium amount was made by the Indusind Bank-opposite party No.1 at Rohtak on behalf of insured. Since the cause of action partly arose at Rohtak. District Forum Rohtak has jurisdiction to decide the complaint”. In the present case also the vehicle in question was hypothecated with the opposite party No.2 at Rohtak and the payment was also made through the opposite party no.2 at Rohtak.. Since the part of cause of action arose at Rohtak. Hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Regarding the other plea taken by the opposite party that intimation of theft was not given to the opposite party immediately and no claim was filed by the complainant. In this regard it is observed that as per copy of UPC Ex.C1 dated 22.06.2012, intimation letter was sent to the head office of opposite party at Mumbai and letter Ex.C2 dated 09.12.2013 was also written to the opposite party for submitting the documents and sending the Email to the head office. Copy of emails Ex.C4 & Ex.C5 is also placed on record. Moreover intimation to the police was given on the same day. Hence the law cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party titled as Kulwant Singh (Supra) is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand we have placed reliance upon the law cited in III(2008) CPJ 459 titled Ridhi Gupta vs. NIC whereby Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Theft-Information to police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not”, as per 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.942796/-. It is also observed that as per document Ex.C10, car loan of Rs.847000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party no.2 to the complainant and the same is outstanding against the complainant alongwith interest.
9. As such it is observed that the opposite party No.1 shall pay the insured amount of Rs.942796/-(Rupees nine lac forty two thousand seven hundred ninety six only) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 26.06.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the opposite party no.2 for adjustment of loan account No.000318139000012 of complainant with the opposite party no.2, maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
