Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 389
Instituted on : 13.08.2019
Decided on : 28.07.2023.
Rajender Singh son of Sh. Antu Ram, resident of Quarter No. 36G, Police Line, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak, through its Divisional Manager, Rohtak.
..…….……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Balwan Saroha, Advocate for complainant.
Dr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of car bearing registration no.HR-12T-3000 and the same was duly insured with the opposite party vide policy No.35380031170100007686 for the period 29.09.2017 to 28.09.2018. The IDV value of the vehicle is Rs.317231/-. On 01.12.2017, the said vehicle was taken by Kunal Arora and at night, he parked the said car outside the street near the house of the complainant but it was stolen in the intervening night of 01/02.12.2017. FIR no. 0420 dated 02.12.2017 was registered regarding the said incident. The intimation of theft was verbally given to the opposite party within time. Official of the opposite party asked the complainant that they shall collect intimation in writing at the time of submitting the claim form. Complainant has completed all the formalities and has also submitted all the required documents in the office of opposite party. Opposite party issued a letter dated 17.05.2019 to the complainant in which they have mentioned that Kunal Arora is owner of the said vehicle as the complainant has sold the vehicle to Kunal Arora and the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of loss. However the complainant is registered owner of the said car which is clear from registration certificate of the said Car. Kunal Arora is only lodger of the FIR who had took the said car of the complainant. Complainant has every insurable interest in the said car at the time of loss. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the IDV value i.e. Rs.317231/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft till actual realization. It is further prayed that opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and submitted its reply that on receiving the information dated 18.06.2018 for claim regarding theft of vehicle bearing registration no. HR-12T-3000(wrongly mentioned as HR-12L-30009790), they appointed investigator Sh. Kailash Sharma, Advocate who submitted his investigation report dated 08.08.2018. As per finding of the investigator there is a delay in intimation to the insurance company for a period of 6 and a half month. They also found that as per NCRB vehicle enquiry report dated 08.08.2018, the insured vehicle has been recovered and further advised to the insured to contact the concerned police station for the recovery of the vehicle. After perusal of the claim file the insurance company sent letter dated 07.03.2019 and 20.03.2019 for submission of documents and clarification from the insured. But neither any reply with clarification was submitted nor remaining documents were submitted by the complainant. Thereafter they repudiated the claim of the insured as No Claim vide letter dated 17.05.2019 with the contents that: “This has reference to your theft intimation dated 18.06.2018 we have gone through the claims file & information submitted by you and observed as under:
- FIR was lodged by Mr. Kunal Arora S/o Sh. Ashok Arora and in FIR it is written that he is owner of his car Swift Dezire No. HR-12T-3000 which was parked in front of his house in the night and in the morning he found that his car was stolen. This shown that you have sold the said vehicle to Mr. Kunal Arora and you have no insurable interest.
- That the theft took place on 02.12.2017 but you have intimated the theft on 19.06.2018, i.e. about 6 and a half months delay. Claim intimation should be given immediately after the theft. Thus this is a violation of condition no. 1 of the Motor Policy.
Keeping in view of above, we would like to inform you that the competent authority has repudiated your claim as NO CLAIM for the following reasons:
- That you have no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of loss.
- That you have intimated about the loss after six and half month delay which should be immediate.”
As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the claim of the complainant is not maintainable, therefore the complainant is not entitled for any claim from opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10 and closed the evidence vide separate statement dated 14.07.2022. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence vide separate statement dated 14.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 17.05.2019 and the same is placed on record as Ex.C3/Ex.R9. The first main objection of the insurance company is that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question and the vehicle has already been sold by the complainant to one Mr. Kunal who lodged the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle. Insurance company failed to place on record any document to prove that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to Kunal. No agreement or affidavit or sale certificate has been placed on record by the insurance company. The second main objection is regarding delayed intimation to the company for 6 months. The intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle has been given promptly in the police station and the FIR was lodged on the very next morning. One more objection has been raised at the time of arguments that vehicle has been recovered by the police and to prove this fact the respondent has placed on record NCRB report Ex.R8 dated 08.08.2018. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C2 an another NCRB report dated 16.01.2019. In the report Ex.C2, it has been specifically mentioned that the vehicle is not recoverable yet. Meaning thereby the vehicle has not been recovered by the police till 16.01.2019. So the report dated 08.08.2018 (Ex.R8) cannot be believed. Moreover we have minutely perused the survey report placed on record by the opposite parties as Ex.R7. In this report the investigator has specifically mentioned that the theft has been admitted by the investigator only objection has been raised i.e. delay intimation to the insurance company. In this regard we have observed the law of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “When insured lodged FIR immediately after theft of a vehicle occurred and when police after investigation have lodged a final report after vehicle was not traced and when surveyors/investigators appointed by insurance company found claim of theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny claim-Lodging of FIR on same day theft occurred-Therefore, denial of claim set aside”. The law cited above, is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case also, FIR was lodged on the very next day of theft. Hence the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.317231/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.317231/- to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.317231/-(Rupees three lac seventeen thousand two hundred and thirty one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.08.2019 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten 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 is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. Thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 28.07.2023 of this Commission within one month.
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:
28.07.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
