BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint No.277/2018.
Date of instt.:12.11.2018.
Date of Decision: 26.03.2019.
Ranbir Singh (aged about 44 years) son of S.Jagir Singh Jammu, resident of Bhagat Singh Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- The New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. Branch Office: 20, Grain Market, Ist Floor, Sardulgarh, District Mansa (Punjab) with which the vehicle HR-51T-2211 was insured. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Sirsa.
- The New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. Divisional Office: 2090, Mall Road, Bhatinda through its Divisional Manager/Authorized person.
- The New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. Registered & Head Office: New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai, 400001 through its General Manager/Authorized person.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri JBL Garg, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Rakesh Bajaj, Adv. for the OPs.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle Hundai Tucson bearing registration No.HR-51-T-2211 and got the same insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.36060631170100003343 commencing from 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.17,116/- as premium against the insured value of Rs.3,99,695/-. On 14.04.2018, at about 10.30 PM, the complainant had parked his vehicle outside the main gate of his house after locking it and when he came out from his house in the morning, the vehicle was not at the parked place. He searched here and there and immediately reported the matter to the concerned police station on 15.04.2018 on which the police had registered an FIR No.318 dated 15.04.2018 u/s 379 IPC. The complainant also intimated the Op No.1 regarding theft of the vehicle. The police had tried to find out the vehicle but in vain and finally, an untraced report was submitted before learned CJM, Sirsa on 08.08.2018. The Op Nos. 1 & 2 had deputed their investigator who collected the keys, copy of RC recorded the statements of two witnessed and deposited in the branch office of Sardulgarh on 13.09.2018 The complainant requested the Ops to pay the claim amount but Ops have refused to admit the claim. This way, the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction, locus standi, estoppal and concealment of material facts have been taken. As a matter of fact, vide letter dated 26.11.2018, the complainant was required to furnish certain documents and information to the Ops but the complainant, instead of supplying such documents and information to the Ops, has filed the present complaint with a malafide intention. The complaint is premature and deserves dismissal as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It has been further submitted that the insurance of the vehicle was subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions laid down in the insurance company and the complainant is under legal obligation to abide by all such conditions. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter both the parties have led their respective evidence. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, OPs has tendered affidavit of Shri Karan Singh, Senior Divisional Manager, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved case of the complainant that the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR51T-2211, which was insured with the Ops, for the period from 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018, on making the payment of premium of Rs.17,116/-. The said vehicle was parked in front of the house of the complainant on 14.04.2018 at about 10:30 P.M. and when the complainant woke up and started to go to morning walk, he found his vehicle missing. Due intimation was given to the police. On the statement of the complainant, FIR No.318 dated 15.04.2018 under Section 379 IPC was registered at P.S. City, Sirsa. Due intimation was given to the insurance company, the claim was lodged and the requisite documents were also submitted to the company, but however, the insurance company did not settle and pay the claim despite submission of the consent letter by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ajam Khan and another, The Punjab Law Reporter (2018-1) page 189 in which it was laid down that Vehicle- Snatched – Stolen - FIR recorded on the next day - There was no delay - Intimated the insurance company after about 26 days- Fact that the FIR was registered on the very next day leads to the conclusion that there was hardly any time for respondent No.1 to cook up a story in order to claim the insurance from the petitioner-company.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has strongly contended that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the same is pre-mature. The complainant has not submitted the requisite documents to the Ops, as a result of which, the Ops are not in a position to settle and pay the claim of the complainant. Complainant has not replied to the queries of the Ops despite the letters written by them to the complainant.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the record very carefully.
8. Admittedly, the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-51-T/2211, which was insured with the Ops for a period from 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018 on making the payment of premium of Rs.17,116/- by the complainant. On 14.04.2018, the complainant had parked his vehicle in front of his house but in the morning the same was found missing. Due intimation was given to the police, which registered FIR No.318 dated 15.04.2018 under Section 379 IPC at P.S. City, Sirsa. Due intimation was also given to the insurance company and claim was lodged. After police investigation, an untraced report was submitted by the police to the concerned Illaqa Magistrate, who accepted the untraced report vide order dated 08.08.2018.
9. The bone of contentions between the parties qua the submission of documents/queries raised by the Ops. As per letter dated 26.11.2018, the insurance company has claimed that the engine number and chasis number of the vehicle has not been mentioned in the FIR. The perusal of the FIR Ex.C1 reveals that the registration number of the vehicle is very much mentioned as HR-51T-2211. Though the engine number and chasis number are not mentioned in the FIR, but it does to mean that this vehicle bearing registration No.HR-51T-2211 was not insured with the Ops rather the copy of the insurance policy Ex.C4 reveals that this vehicle HR-51T-2211 was insured by the Ops. So, now, the Ops cannot take this plea that the claim of the complainant cannot be settled as engine number and chasis number are not mentioned in the FIR.
10. The second objection of the Ops is that the value of the insured vehicle is mentioned as Rs.40,000/- in the FIR whereas the complainant has claimed the loss of Rs.4 lakh. Even if, it is presumed that there is some mistake and error in writing the FIR qua the value of the vehicle, even then, the claim is to be settled by the Ops on the basis of the insured value of the vehicle as shown in the insurance policy and both the parties are bound to the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. So, this plea of the insurance company is also appears to be devoid of any merits.
11. The third objection of the insurance company is qua not sending the previous details of the insured vehicle. Since, the Ops before issuing the insurance policy had gone through the facts and circumstances of the vehicle and thereafter being satisfied, the representatives of the insurance company had issued the policy. Now, the insurance company cannot take the ground that the claim of the complainant cannot be settled without the previous details of the vehicle.
12. The fourth objection of the insurance company is that the insurance period mentioned in the verification of the RC from the concerned authority as 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 whereas the policy relates to the period valid from 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. It is a settled principle of law that the insurance company cannot back out from the insurance contact which has been entered into between the complainant and the insurance company and the contract was for consideration of payment of premium amount which has been received by the Ops. So, it appears that the Ops are taking excuses in order to avoid to settle the claim of the complainant.
13. Moreover, the perusal of the letter Ex.R1 reveals that the Ops had sent a consent letter to the complainant and called upon him to fill and sign the same. The perusal of the consent letter Ex.C5 reveals that the consent was obtained for a sum of Rs.3,97,695/-, which was duly executed by the complainant by putting his signature. So, it appears that the Ops had made their offer for the settlement of the claim on this amount. At this stage, the Ops cannot back out from their offer to settle and pay the claim of the complainant and it clearly amounts to promissory estoppal against the Ops.
14. So, it appears from the evidence on record that the complainant has proved that he is owner of the vehicle which was got insured from the Ops for the period from 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018 and during the validation of the policy, his vehicle was stolen on the night of 14.04.2018 and due intimation was given to the police, which registered FIR and the police had also submitted the untraced report which was accepted by the learned Illaqa Magistrate and so, there remains no doubt qua the theft of the vehicle.
15. So, in view the above discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to the Ops to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:26.03.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
