Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/186/2018

Rameshwar dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Manpal Singh

03 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                                                Complaint Case No.:186 of 2018

     Date of Institution   : 17.12.2018

                                                Date of Decision     :         03.11.2023

 

Rameshwar Dass son of Sh. Chhabildass (since deceased) through his legal heirs:

1. Smt. Geeta Devi-widow
2. Pawan Kumar Saini-son
3. Satish-son
4. Suman-daughter
5. Gaytri-daughter

 

All residents of H.No.6090, Hanuman Dhani, Near India High School, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                            ….Complainants.

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Circular Road, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO-151-153,Above Syndicate Bank, Hisar, Tehsil and District, Hisar.

 

....Opposite Parties (OPs).

 

                 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before: -    Hon’ble Smt. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Manpal Singh, Advocate for complainants.

                 Sh. Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

        

ORDER

Smt. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.   

1.           Brief facts of this case are that complainant Rameshwar Dass (since deceased) was owner of vehicle Bolero bearing registration no.HR-16Q-6151, Engine No.GRF-4F84081, Chasis No.MA1PS2GRKF5F63162, Model 2015. The vehicle was insured with OP for a period from 31.08.2017 to 30.08.2018. On 29.12.2017, the vehicle was snatched by unknown persons within the area of Golagarh-Khairpura road.  In this regard, Mr. Satish- son of complainant, get lodged FIR No.777 dated 30.12.2017 under Section 395/397 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act  at PS Sadar Bhiwani, to which, police submitted untrace on 02.05.2018.  OPs were informed immediately qua the accident, and lodged a claim with Ops submitted all relevant document but the Ops did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant. So, legal notice dated 26.07.2018 was served upon the Ops. The OPs vide letter dated 18.10.2018 repudiated the claim of complainant which as per complainant is wrong and illegal. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking directions to Ops to pay a sum of Rs.5,81,000/- to the complainant as insured amount of the vehicle; to pay Rs.1.00 lacs as compensation for harassment and also to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.           Ops appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that there is no cause of action to file the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant get lodged FIR after delay of one day and information was given to OP company after five days which amounts to violation of terms & conditions of policy, as such, claim was not found payable. Insurance of the vehicle for the relevant period has been has been admitted subject to certain terms and conditions. As per policy condition no.1, the complainant was bound to inform immediately after the alleged occurrence. As per investigation report of Govt. approved surveyor and loss assessor Sh. R.S. Sharma, the vehicle was being used for collection of milk from village Golagarh-Kaherpura-Azad Nagar and other places and taken to Bhiwani daily for supply of milk, as such, it was being used for commercial purpose which is also against the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. In the end, Ops have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3.           In evidence of complainant, affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11 have been filed and closed the evidence on 15.07.2019.
4.            On the other side, affidavit of Sh. R.S. Sharma, Surveyor and loss Assessor as Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-12 have been filed and closed the evidence on 31.08.2022. 5.             We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case file minutely.

6.                     Perusal of photocopy of registration certificate (Annexure -I) reveals that the complainant Rameshwar Dass (since deceased) was registered owner of the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time.  Annexure C-2 & Annexure C-3 is the insurance policy qua the vehicle in question for the relevant period of time and IDV of the vehicle is Rs.5,81,000/- Copy of FIR is Annexure/Ex. C-4 which reveals that the vehicle in question was snatched on 29.12.2017 and FIR No.777 dated 30.12.2017 under Section 395, 397 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at P.S. Bhiwani Sadar, in this  regard.  Annexure C-5 is final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. whereby reveals that the vehicle remained untraced.  Annexure C-6 is copy of driving license of Satish whereby he is authorized to vehicle LMV and other categories. As per repudiation letter (Annexure C-11), claim of complainant has been  repudiated on the grounds that  ‘the incident occurred on 29.12.2017 and FIR in the matter was lodged on 30.12.2017 i.e.after a delay of one day.  Further insured intimated the incident to OP company on 03.01.2018 i.e. after a delay of five days. As such, complainant has violated the terms and conditions no.1 of the policy. Further, as per surveyor’s report dated 18.07.2018,Mr. Satish son of Sh. Rameshwar Dass Saini was using /driving the insured vehicle bearing regn. No.HR-16Q-6151 for transportation of milk every day basis and on 29.12.2017 in the same vehicle, he was also carrying drums of milk and one veiling machine at the time when it was snatched by unknown dacoits. The vehicle was insured under Private Car package policy which was meant for personal use but at the time of occurrence, it was being used commercially and thus claim of complainant was filed as No Claim.’   Ld. counsel for OP in support of his case has placed reliance on a case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Chander Parkash Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 13.07.2012.

7.                     After going through the FIR and final report in the case, it is clear that the incident took place on 29.12.2017 at about 7:00 p.m. and the FIR was get registered on 30.12.2017 00:45 hrs.  In view of this, we hold that complainant had informed the police within a reasonable time and the version of OP that there was any delay in informing the police is not tenable. We are of further view that once the F.I.R. and the cancellation report is on the record, which are sufficient to come to conclusion that the vehicle was snatched by some unknown person(s)  and during the investigation of the case vehicle was not traceable.  Further, from FIR Ex. C-4 & Annexure R-11, it reveals that the robbers not only snatched the vehicle but also tortured the occupants of the vehicle which may have intimidated them and thus it is reasonable on the part of complainant that he informed the incidence to the OP insurance company on 03.01.2018. As such, repudiation of claim by OP insurance company on such grounds was not justified. The another ground for repudiation of claim by OP insurance company is that the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle.  From the record and hearing the parties, it is nowhere  proved that the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle.  Carrying of milk drums not bring the case within the ambit of commercial use of the vehicle.  It is not a dispute that at the relevant point of time the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective   driving license to drive the vehicle in question.

8.                     In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that Ops are negligent and deficient in providing proper service to the complainant and repudiation of the claim by it was not reasonable and justified. The case laws (supra) relied upon by the counsel for OPs are not helpful to the present case.  Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within fourty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)        To pay a sum of Rs.5,81,000/- (Rs.Five lac eighty one thousand) as IDV of the vehicle in question, to the complainants, in equal share, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization subject to execution of letter of Subrogation in favour of OP Company and furnishing of affidavit & all other relevant documents qua transfer of vehicle in question in favour of OP Insurance Company by the complainants within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.

(ii)       Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of Ops.

(iii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                        Further the award issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 03.11.2023

                                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                    (Saroj Bala Bohra)            

                                                       Member                           Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:     Sh. Manpal Singh, Advocate for complainants.

                 Sh. Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

        

                        Arguments heard. Vide order passed today separately, this complaint has been allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room, as per rules. 

Dated: 03.11.2023.

                               Member                             Presiding Member

                                                                                                  DCDRC, Bhiwani