Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 48.
Instituted on : 02.02.2018.
Decided on : 06.08.2019.
Ashok age 43 years, s/o Sube Singh R/o V.P.O.-Farmana Khas, Teh.- Meham, Distt.Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office-1 Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Naresh Siwach, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. O.P.Punia, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-15C-6344, which was duly insured from respondent company vide policy no.420301/17/6300000949 for the period from 29.06.2017 to 28.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.425000/-. That on 09.11.2017, his vehicle was stolen by some unknown culprit when it was standing in the market and the same was duly locked. That complainant immediately intimated to respondent about the theft and FIR No.644 dated 09.11.2017 was lodged. That intimation was also given to the OP and complainant submitted the claim form regarding the theft of vehicle alongwith documents. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim has not been settled by the opposite party. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.425000/- alongwith interest besides compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause, to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that insured has not submitted the necessary documents such as untraced report from the Court, both the keys of the tractor, letter of subrogation, indemnity bond and final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., DL of the driver and the complainant failed to reply the quarries raised by the respondent. Without fulfilling the requisite formalities, the claim cannot be settled. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW11 and has closed his evidence on dated 02.01.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, document Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 20.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main contention of the respondent insurance company is that the complainant has intimated to the insurance company belatedly after 4 days. They further submitted that complainant has not submitted the necessary documents such as untraced report from the Court, both the keys of the tractor, letter of subrogation, indemnity bond and final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., DL of the driver. So the claim could not be settled. To prove this fact, respondent insurance company has placed on record affidavit of Sh. Shakti Singh, Assistant Divisional Manager, alongwith the document Ex.R2, a letter written by the branch manager to the complainant dated 01.03.2019. Through this letter the insurance company demanded both the keys of the vehicle, untraced report and some other documents. We have perused document placed on record by both the parties.
6. In the present case, the vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 8-9/11.2017 and regarding this fact FIR was registered in the concerned police station on 09.11.2017 and intimation was given to the insurance company on 13.11.2017. Regarding the delayed intimation of 4 days to the opposite party, we have placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby 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”. We have placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula decided on 20.09.2018 in case titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby it is held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. The law cited above, are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also observed that untraced report was issued by the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the complainant has deposited both the keys of the vehicle in question and untraced report with the insurance company on 27.03.2017. To prove this fact complainant has placed on record, receiving of the documents by the opposite party i.e. NIC Hissar, which is placed on record as Annexure-“JN-A’. The written statement was filed by the insurance company on 06.09.2018, whereas the respondent insurance company wrote a letter to the complainant on dated 01.03.2019. Meaning thereby, when the written statement was filed by the respondent insurance company, they have not wrote any letter to the complainant prior to 01.03.2019. The respondent insurance company has not mentioned any information that they have wrote earlier letters to the complainant for submission of documents as well as the keys of the vehicle in question with Ex.R2. So after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we came to the conclusion that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party on flimsy grounds is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, complainant is entitled for the loss of vehicle as per IDV of the vehicle.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.425000/-(Rupees four lac twenty five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint i.e.02.02.2018 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the financer of vehicle i.e. Indusind Bank, Rohtak against the outstanding loan amount of the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.29, 30, letter of subrogation and Indemnity Bond to the opposite party.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.08.2019.
...................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
