Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 493
Instituted on : 11.10.2018
Decided on : 21.04.2023.
Deepak Kumar aged-33 years s/o Sh. Satbir Singh R/o VPO Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- The National Insurance Company Limited through its Sr. Divisional Manager/Incharge, Divisional Office-I, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak.(Insurer of Truck No. HR-46-D-0088)
- Tata Motors Finance Limited, through its Branch Manager/Incharge,103, I-Floor, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Park, Civil Road, Rohtak.(Financer of Truck No. HR-46-D-0088)
- Tata Motors Insurance Broking and Advisory Services Ltd. through its Branch Manager/Incharge, 103, I-Floor, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Park, Civil Road, Rohatk.(Insurance Agent of OP No. 1)
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. D.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.3 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of Truck No. HR-46-D-0088 of Telco Ltd. He has purchased the alleged truck to earn his livelihood in March 2015 and the truck was H.P.A. with Tata Motors Finance Ltd. i.e. opposite party no. 2 from its Branch Office of District Rohtak. It is further submitted that on 30.03.2015 complainant insured the alleged vehicle with opposite party no. 1 through its agent/opposite party no. 3 vide policy no.55270031146360230006 which was valid from 30.03.2015 to 29.03.2016 with a premium of Rs.35,335/-. The I.D.V. of the said vehicle is Rs.12,30,250/-. On 22.07.2015 the said vehicle was parked in front of office at village Dulina, District Jhajjar properly locked with due care. Many persons were present in office to safe guard the truck including one Mr. Rajesh s/o Sh. Chandan Singh R/o Kath Mandi, Rohtak. Inspite of all measures and precautions to safe guard the truck, the said truck was stolen by some unidentified person during night hours on 22- 23.07.2015. Complainant has immediately informed the police by dialing 100 and also to the police officials personally. An F.I.R. No.723 dated 23.07.2015 u/s-379 of 1.P.C. was got registered regarding the theft in P.S.Jhajjar. The complainant had immediately lodged the claim on account of theft regarding the truck in the office of opposite parties on next day of theft i.e. 24.07.2015 and also completed all the formalities as required by opposite party No.1. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 many time and was in touch with Mr. Vijay Kumar Jaitley who assured the complainant that after submission of untraced report issued by Illaka Magistrate, claim amount of Rs. 12,30,250/- will be paid. Thereafter on 16.05.2016, the complainant submitted the untraced report in the office of opposite party No.1. On 08.06.2016, complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.1 to collect the cheque. The officials of opposite party No.1 told the complainant that intimation application and other papers were missing and that own damage claim file is not traceable and prepared a fresh intimation letter. The complainant has signed second intimation letter in good faith by thinking that they are ready to settle the claim and admitted their fault. The complainant also intimated the opposite party No.2 and 3 regarding the theft on 24.07.2015 and they told that they also informed the opposite party No.1 regarding the theft and also sent papers to the insurance company for further action. Thereafter, police officials and concerned J.M.1.C., Court has issued untraced report in respect of complainant's truck. The untraced report dated 21.09.2015 has been issued by the D.S.P. and S.P. of District Jhajjar and said untraced report has also been accepted by the court of Sh. Amit Sharma, C.J.M., Jhajjar on 25.04.2016. The complainant has submitted all necessary documents including untraced reports in the office of opposite parties at Rohtak on 16 May 2016. Investigation was carried out by investigator and his report states that theft is genuine and he recommended the payment of Rs. 12,30,250/- towards claim. The complainant was shocked and surprised after receiving the letter dated 02.02.2018 in which claim was settled as "No Claim" on flimsy ground by saying that "There is delay of 11 months in lodging the claim". "NO CLAIM" letter dated 02.02.2018 is null & void and not binding upon the complainant and same is wrong and illegal in the eyes of law, whereas the claim was lodged with the opposite party No.1 on 24.07.2015. It is further submitted that neither any terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant nor same bears complainant's signature. Complainant had already lodged his claim in office of opposite party No.1 immediately i.e. 24.07.2015 and on the other hand intimation to the police and opposite party No.2 and 3 was also given immediately. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties many times for settlement of claim but they have illegally decline the claim as "NO Claim". The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that complainant lodged FIR No.723 dated 23.07.2015 P.S.Jhajjar and mentioned that he has taken contract of liquor in District Jhajjar. The said vehicle was used to supply the liquor to liquor shops and was parked in the night of 22.07.2015 in front of his office. The same was stolen by some unknown persons. But the complainant given claim intimation in the office of opposite party no. 1 on 08.06.2016 after 11 months of the theft. They sent a registered letter on 15.06.2016 to the complainant regarding receiving the letter on 08.06.2016 and noted the theft of the vehicle. It is further submitted that as per condition no.-1 of the insurance policy an immediate notice to the insurance Company of any loss is necessary. In this case neither any intimation in to the office of the insurance company nor at the toll free number has been given. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the entire loan amount has been paid by the complainant, therefore nothing is due against the complainant. The complainant has unnecessarily dragged the answering opposite party into uncalled litigation as dispute with regard to the claim amount regarding theft of the vehicle is with opposite party No.1 and the answering opposite party has no concern in payment of claim. The amount if any, is to be paid by the opposite party No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Learned counsel for the complainant given up opposite party no. 3 being unnecessary vide separate statement dated 17.07.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex. CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.10.2020. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-5 and closed his evidence on 03.11.2021. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A, documents Ex. RW2/1 and close his evidence on dated 04.02.2021.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 24.04.2017 placed on record as Ex.R4 on the ground that the intimation regarding the occurrence has been given on 08.06.2016 by the complainant in the office of respondent i.e. after 11 months of theft of the vehicle. As per terms and conditions of the policy an immediate notice to the insurance company be given by the complainant regarding the loss. The complainant in para no.5 of his complaint has stated that he had immediately lodged the claim on account of theft regarding the truck in the office of opposite parties on next day of theft i.e. 24.07.2015 and also completed all the formalities as required by opposite party No.1. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 many time and was in touch with Mr. Vijay Kumar Jaitley who assured the complainant that after submission of untraced report issued by Illaka Magistrate, claim amount of Rs. 12,30,250/- will be paid. But in reply to para no.5 on merits, it is submitted by the opposite party No.1 that “para no.5 of the complaint is specifically wrong and denied”. Respondent no.1 has not specifically mentioned that the official/officer Mr.Jaitely has not received any information regarding the theft of the vehicle from the complainant. Moreover no affidavit of Mr.Jaitely has been placed on record by the opposite party No.1 that he has not received any intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle from the complainant. Meaning thereby Mr. Jaitely has received the intimation regarding the theft well within time. As such the facts mentioned in para no.5 of the complaint stands believed. Hence it is proved that the claim has been filed 2nd time on dated on 08.06.2016. Hence there is no delayed intimation on the part of complainant. As such the authority cited by ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 in 2018(4)CLT of Hon’ble National Commission , New Delhi, case titled as Shri Krishna and others Vs. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. and others as well as order dated 13.02.2023 of this Commission in case titled as Smt. Meena Kumari Vs. NIC are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstance of the case. It is also on record that the FIR was lodged on the very next day of the theft i.e. 23.07.2015. Hence the opposite party No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant. As per insurance certificate Ex.R1, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.1230250/-.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.1230250/-(Rupees twelve lac thirty thousand two hundred and fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.10.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 21.04.2023 of this Commission. However, complainant is directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.
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:
21.04.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
