Haryana

Kaithal

299/20

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Anurag Gupta

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.      299 of 2020.

                                                          Date of institution:                  18.09.2020.

                                                          Date of decision:            28.03.2024.

 

Satish Kumar s/o Shri Prem Chand c/o M/s Sant Lal Sham Chand, Shop No.56, NGM Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Office, Opp. Kapil Muni Mahila College, Railway Road, Kalayat, District Kaithal, through its Branch Manager/concerned authority.

...Opposite Party.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Anurag Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.   

                   Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party.

                  

ORDER   -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he purchased a car (Maruti Suzuki/Swift Dzire VDI) in the year 2015, bearing Registration No.HR-08U-8919, which was insured with OP vide last certificate/policy No.1126823117P113310519 valid from 23.12.2017 to 22.12.2018 with IDV of Rs.5,30,000/-. That unfortunately, during the period of insurance the said car was stolen between 22:30 PM (31.08.2018) and 09:30 AM (01.09.2018) in front of Shakti Vihar Gate No.4, Main Road, Delhi and in this regard, FIR No.030690 dated 01.09.2018 u/s 379 of IPC was lodged in PS E-Police Station (Rani Bagh, North West), District Crime Branch, Delhi on the basis of complaint filed by Manish Singla. That the original documents i.e. original RC, Insurance, Pollution Certificate etc. were kept in the said car. That immediately he gave intimation to the officials of OPs. That later on Untraced Report dated 23.09.2018 was given by SHO, Delhi, which has been accepted by the learned ACMM-1, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide order dated 29.10.2018. That the OP asked him to get the registration certificate of car cancelled from the office of RTO, Kaithal and concerned official of OP intimated to him that the OP had also written an official letter to the RTO Kaithal in this regard. That as per instruction of OP, he submitted all the documents to RTO Kaithal, thereupon, RTO Kaithal vide order dated 04.11.2019 cancelled the RC of the car and thereafter, he visited the office of OP and submitted the official order dated 04.11.2019, passed by RTO, Kaithal, but again OP wrote a letter dated 25.11.2019 to RTO, Kaithal for issuance of registration certificate in the name of OP. That the OP with a motive to cover its wrong action again showed a letter dated 17.01.2020, perpetually written by it to RTO Kaithal, thereby again asking RTO Kaithal to issue transferred registration certificate in the name of OP. That the OP illegally and wrongfully misleading him, although he has no role to play in the issue/refusal of RC in the name of OP by the RTO Kaithal. That the above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on its part, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OP, before this Commission.    

3.             Upon notice, OP appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement, stating therein that the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and failed to get the RC transferred in the name of insurance company, which is prime condition for payment of claim, under the policy. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OP and complaint in hand deserves to be dismissed with special costs. That intimation about the alleged theft was received in the office of OP and Mr. Sunil Jain, Investigator was appointed by the company to investigate the theft claim of car, who submitted its report dated 16.12.2018.

4.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9.

5.                On the other hand, OP in its evidence, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased a car Maruti Suzuki/Swift Dzire VDI in the year 2015, bearing Registration No.HR-08U-8919, which was insured with OP vide last certificate/policy No.1126823117P113310519 valid from 23.12.2017 to 22.12.2018 with IDV of Rs.5,30,000/-. He further argued that unfortunately, during the period of insurance the said car was stolen between 22:30 PM (31.08.2018) and 09:30 AM (01.09.2018) in front of Shakti Vihar Gate No.4, Main Road, Delhi and in this regard, FIR No.030690 dated 01.09.2018 u/s 379 of IPC was lodged in PS E-Police Station (Rani Bagh, North West), District Crime Branch, Delhi. He further argued that the original documents i.e. original RC, Insurance, Pollution Certificate etc. were kept in the said car. He further argued that immediately the complainant gave intimation to the officials of OPs. He further argued that later on Untraced Report dated 23.09.2018 was given by SHO, Delhi, which has been accepted by the learned ACMM-1, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide order dated 29.10.2018. He further argued that the OP asked the complainant to get the registration certificate of car cancelled from the office of RTO, Kaithal and concerned official of OP intimated to him that the OP had also written an official letter to the RTO Kaithal in this regard. He further argued that as per instruction of OP, the complainant submitted all the documents to RTO Kaithal, thereupon, RTO Kaithal vide order dated 04.11.2019 cancelled the RC of the car. He further argued that thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OP and submitted the official order dated 04.11.2019 passed by RTO, Kaithal, but again OP wrote a letter dated 25.11.2019 to RTO, Kaithal for insurance of registration certificate in the name of OP. He further argued that the OP with a motive to cover its wrong action again showed a letter dated 17.01.2020, perpetually written by it to RTO Kaithal, thereby again asking RTO Kaithal to issue transferred registration certificate in the name of OP. He further argued that the above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on its part. In order to support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Gurmel Singh Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 0 (CPJ) 1561 (SC).

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has argued that on intimation about the alleged theft was received in the office of OP and Mr. Sunil Jain, Investigator was appointed by the company to investigate the theft claim of car, who submitted its report dated 16.12.2018. He further argued that the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and failed to get the RC transferred in the name of insurance company, which is prime condition for payment of claim, under the policy. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OP and complaint in hand deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant is/was the registered owner of car Maruti Suzuki/Swift Dzire VDI bearing Registration No.HR-08U-8919 Annexure C-1, which was insured, with the OP vide Private Car-Package Policy bearing certificate/policy No.1126823117P113310519 valid from 23.12.2017 to 22.12.2018 with IDV of Rs.5,30,000/- Annexure C-2. The said car was stolen and in this regard, FIR bearing No.030690 dated 01.09.2018 u/s 379 of IPC was lodged in P.S. e-Police Station (Rani Bagh, North West), Delhi on the basis of complaint filed by Manish Singla Annexure C-3. Later on Untraced Report was given by SHO, E-PS M.V. Theft, Delhi on 23.09.2018 Annexure C-4, which has been accepted by the learned ACMM-01, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide its order dated 29.10.2018 Annexure C-5.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that the complainant immediately gave intimation to the officials of OPs and asked the complainant to get the registration certificate of car cancelled from the office of RTO, Kaithal. The complainant applied for the same, after paying requisite fees of Rs.500/-, in this regard Annexure C-7, upon which, RTO Kaithal, vide its order dated 04.11.2019 cancelled the RC of the car in question Annexure C-6. He further submitted that thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OP and submitted the said official order dated 04.11.2019, passed by RTO and requested to release the claim amount, but all in vain. Complainant produced copy of letter dated 25.11.2019 Annexure C-8 on the case file, vide which, the OP stated that the said authority has wrongly cancelled the registration certificate of the vehicle in question and issued cancelled RC and made request to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of OP. The complainant further produced copy of letter dated 17.01.2020, written by OP to said Registration Authority, Kaithal with a request to transfer the RC of the vehicle in question in the name of OP.

11.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for the OP has vehemently argued that since the complainant failed to get the RC transferred in the name of insurance company, therefore, the OP insurance company is unable to release the claim amount in his favour.

12.              So, from the above pleadings of the parties, we found that the OP refused to release the claim amount, to the complainant, on the ground that the complainant failed to get the RC transferred, in the name of insurance company. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the case of stolen of vehicle, the concerned Registering Authority itself cancels the RC of that vehicle instead of transferring the same in the name of insurance company. In this regard, at the time of arguments, he placed reliance upon document Mark-A, which is copy of letter dated 25.07.2019, written by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to all the General Insurers and submitted that its Para No.2 is relevant, which reads as under:-

          “(2)   The registering authority shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration”.

13.              So, from the above directions, it is crystal clear that in the case of stolen of vehicle, the concerned Registering Authority itself cancels the RC of that vehicle in question, as such, in the case in hand, vide order dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure C-6) the Registering Authority, Kaithal has cancelled the RC of the vehicle in question itself, in compliance of above-mentioned directions of IRDAI. Furthermore, Para No.3 of the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Registration Authority, Kaithal Annexure C-6, is relevant, which reads as under:-

          “The documents submitted by the applicant (complainant) have perused, United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., Kalayat Distt. Kaithal (OP) has issued a letter to the effect that above mentioned vehicle is in the name of owner Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Chand, R/o M/s Sant Lal, Prem Chand Shop No.56, Nagar Nigam, Kaithal has been stolen. Since documents submitted by the applicant disclose that the above mentioned vehicle is Stolen. The Registration Certificate of above said vehicle is hereby ordered to be cancelled as per provision of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988”.

14.              So, from the above contents, it is crystal clear that OP himself written a letter to the Registration Authority, Kaithal, regarding cancellation of the RC of the vehicle in question being stolen one and on their request, the said Registration Authority, Kaithal has cancelled the same. Moreover, when it has come to the notice of OP that the RC of the vehicle in question has been cancelled by the Registration Authority, Kaithal concerned, then OP has written a letter on 25.11.2019 to said Registration Authority, Kaithal with the prayer that they have wrongly cancelled the RC of the said vehicle and requested to transfer the ownership of RC in the name of insurance company. So, from the above facts, it is gathered that on the written request of OP, the Registration Authority, Kaithal has cancelled the RC of the vehicle in question and after that, the OP again made written request to the said Registration Authority, Kaithal to change the ownership of the said vehicle in question in their name instead of canceling the RC and the complainant has no role to play in cancelling the RC of the vehicle in question and now it is the inter-se matter between the OP. But contrary to it, the OP insurance company has wrongly blamed the complainant for cancelation of the RC of vehicle in question and refused to pay the claim amount and demanded the transfer of ownership of vehicle in question in their name, which is beyond the control of the complainant. So, the above act and conduct of OP, of not releasing the genuine claim, to the complainant, amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OP.   

15.              Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that in order to release the claim amount, the OP is demanding the cancelled RC of the vehicle in question, from the complainant, which is beyond the control of the complainant. In order to support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Gurmel Singh Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.  (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that (A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Insurance – Theft of Insured Truck – Non-settlement of claim for not filing relevant documents – Complaint dismissed by Fora below – FIR was immediately lodged in Police Station – On same day, complainant also informed insurance company as well as Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding theft of Truck – RTO denied to issue duplicate certified copy of Certificate of registration on the ground that due to report of theft of Truck, details regarding registration certificate on computer has been locked – Appellant had produced photocopy of certificate of registration and registration particulars as provided by RTO – Solely on the ground that original certificate of registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non-settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency in service – Appellant has been wrongly denied insurance claim”.  So, from the perusal of above case law, it is evident that the OP insurance company cannot insist/force to the complainant to provide the document regarding transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question in its name, because it is beyond the control of the complainant to provide the same, as the Registering Authority, Kaithal concerned has already cancelled the RC of the vehicle in question on itself. So, the above act and conduct of OP of not releasing the claim amount, to the complainant, on this very ground, amounts to gross deficiency in service on its part.

16.              So, keeping in view the above directions of IRDAI and the ratio of case law, referred to above as well as the detailed facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the denial of the claim of complainant, done by the OP, is held to be unjustified and amounts to deficiency in services, on its part, due to which, the complainant might have suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss. Hence, the OP is liable to pay the sum insured of the vehicle in question along with compensation amount + litigation expenses, to the complainant. From the policy document Annexure C-2, it is evident that the IDV value of the vehicle in question was Rs.5,30,000/-, hence, the OP is liable to pay the said amount along with compensation + litigation expenses, to the complainant. However, it is made clear that whenever in future, in case, the vehicle in question has been traced out and the complainant got received the same, then the complainant shall handover the said vehicle to the OP along with affidavit, if any, regarding change of ownership of the vehicle in question, in the name of OP insurance company.

17.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay the insured amount of Rs.5,30,000/- along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within 45 days, from today, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization.

18.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:28.03.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.