Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 266
Instituted on : 02.05.2022
Decided on : 13.07.2023
Arvind age 35 years s/o Sh. Surender Singh, VPO Ladpur Badli, Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar at present H.No. 1395/21, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak.
......................Complainant.
Vs.
- New India Insurance Company, Sampla Branch, Office 2nd Floor, Near Old Post Office, above Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak Road, Sampla, District Rohtak.
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Roopalya Complex Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001.
...........…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rohit Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.Sandedep Hooda, Advocate for opposite no.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of vehicle truck bearing registration no.HR-63-D-9872 and the same was insured with the opposite party no. 1 vide policy No.35380631180100000361 for the period from 03.05.2018 to 02.05.2019 against an assured amount of Rs.33,25,000/-. The vehicle was financed with opposite party no. 2. On 19.04.2019, the driver of the complainant parked the above mentioned truck and had properly locked the same but the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant immediately informed the concerned police about the theft of the vehicle and on the basis of the statement made by the complainant an FIR No.169 dated 20.04.2019 under Section 379 IPC was registered in P.S.City Jhajjar. The complainant duly intimated the officials of the opposite party no. 1 and completed all the formalities. The police could not trace out/locate the said vehicle and filed an untraced report on 03.03.2021 and same was allowed and after obtaining the untraced report the complainant submitted the same with all required documents to opposite party no. 1 but the officials of the opposite party no. 1 had not approved the insurance claim. Thereafter on 15.09.2021 complainant moved an application to reopen the claim file but the opposite party told that the claim file has been closed. Complainant approached many times to opposite party no. 1 but despite his repeated requests, opposite party has not disbursed the insured amount to the complainant. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.33,25,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date on which the vehicle was stolen, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1 in its reply has submitted that it is wrong and denied that the complainant submitted all required documents to the opposite party no. 1. Complainant never visited the office of opposite party and no information was given by the complainant. They appointed an IRDA accredited surveyor for survey of the spot and to assess the nature and amount of loss and verify the facts pertaining to this incident. The surveyor send letters dated 04.06.2019, 22.06.2019, 08.07.2019 and 18.07.2019 for submitting the following documents as required mention below:- 1) 100 No. Call details, 2) Trailer Body Bill, 3) Correction of time in FIR, 4) Letter to RTO, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar for keeping the file in safe custody, 5) Non-Repossession Letter from the Financer, 6) Confirmation from the consigner for receipt of goods, 7) Final Report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., duly certified by Court 8) Any other information/documents, related to case. But the complainant has not submitted the documents and clarified the requirements. Thereafter the opposite party also sent the letters dated 01.08.2019 and 28.08.2019 to the complainant for submitting the above said information/documents. But complainant did not submit the same. In view of the same, opposite party no. 1 closed the said file as No Claim and intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 05.09.2019. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Opposite party no. 2 appeared and submitted its reply. It is denied that the complainant has paid all of the installments required by the opposite party no. 2. In fact as per account statement the dues/account are not cleared by the complainant till date. It is prayed that if the Hon’ble Commission finds the present complaint proper and allows the same, respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to pay the awarded amount to the respondent no.2 to settle the account of the complainant to clear his due towards respondent no.2.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.10.2022. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence on 21.04.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/5 and closed his evidence on 01.03.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has also tendered documents Ex.R2/6 to Ex.R2/7 in his additional evidence and closed his evidence on 13.07.2013.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case insurance and theft of vehicle is not disputed. After the theft, complainant filed the complaint with the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R5 dated 04.06.2019 has demanded some documents i.e. 1) 100 No. Call details, 2) Trailer Body Bill, 3) Correction of time in FIR, 4) Letter to RTO, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar for keeping the file in safe custody, 5) Non-Repossession Letter from the Financer, 6) Confirmation from the consigner for receipt of goods, 7) Final Report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., duly certified by Court 8) Any other information/documents, related to case. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Regarding the details of 100 No.call, complainant has placed on record copy of document Ex.C10, as per which the details of 100 call log book was maintained only for one year and the same was already destroyed by the department. Hence the same is not required. Affidavit regarding non transfer of vehicle in the name of any other person is already given on Ex.C6 and application regarding the same is given at page no.2 of Ex.C6 on dated 14.05.2019 whereas the letters Ex.R6 & Ex.R7 were issued on dated 04.06.2019 and 14.06.2019. Untraced report is placed on record as Ex.C12. All the required documents have been sent to the opposite party through registered post and to prove the same track consignment report Ex.C9 is placed on record. Some other irrelevant documents have been demanded by the opposite party, which are not required for settlement of claim of the complainant. So the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as per IDV of the vehicle. Perusal of Ex.C3 shows that the vehicle is hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.2. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.3325000/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. to pay Rs.3325000/-. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has placed on record statement of loan account Ex.R2/6 and letter Ex.R2/7, as per which an amount of Rs.4065763/- is payable by the complainant.
7. 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.3325000/-(Rupees thirty three lac twenty five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.05.2022 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 this order. It is made clear that the alleged amount shall be paid to the opposite party No.2 for settlement of loan amount of the complainant.
7. 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:
13.07.2023.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
