Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1012/2015

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajan Kapil

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1012

                                                Instituted on:    08.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       09.03.2016

 

Hardeep Singh aged 45 years son of Shri Sadha Singh, resident of Village Badbar, now resident of Police Lines, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             National Insurance company Ltd. National Insurance Building, Opposite Kaula Park Market, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

2.             National Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Address: 3, Middleton Street, Post Box NO.9229, Kolkata- 700 071 through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv.

For Opp.parties         :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Hardeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his Honda Activa scooter bearing registration number PB-19-K-3263 from the OPs vide policy number 40420031146200000813 for the period from 20.5.2014 to 19.5.2015 by paying the requisite premium.  It is further averred that the Activa in question of the complainant was stolen on 27.09.2014 when it lying parked at the police line Petrol Pump Sangrur, as such, the complainant informed the local police about the theft and FIR was registered bearing number 368 dated 8.12.2014 in P.S. City Sangrur under section 379 of the IPC.  It is further averred that the complainant intimated the OPs about the theft and submitted the required documents with the OPs for the payment of claim, but the OP number 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 17.7.2015 on the grounds that the investigator, Shri Rakesh Kumar Mehta has stated in his report that the complainant left the key in the vehicle and the complainant was not having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle, as such the claim was closed as ‘no claim’.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.44,870/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs under the policy in question for the period from 20.5.2014 to 19.5.2015. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle was stolen on 27.9.2014 when it was lying parked at police line petrol pump, Sangrur and FIR number 368 dated 8.12.2014 was lodged with police station city, Sangrur.  It is further averred that after receipt of the intimation, the Ops appointed Shri Rakesh Kumar Mehta investigator to investigate the claim, who vide his report dated 5.7.2015 stated that the complainant had forgotten the key in the scooter and the complainant  was having not a valid driving license to drive the vehicle, as such, the Ops rightly have closed the claim file as ‘no claim’.  Further it is stated that the OPs received intimation from the complainant only on 12.12.2014 regarding the theft of the vehicle whereas the vehicle was stolen on 27.09.2014. It is stated further that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OPs and any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of FIR, Ex.C-4 copy of bill, Ex.C-5 copy of RC, Ex.C-6 copy of DL, Ex.C-7 copy of DL, Ex.C-8 copy of repudiation letter dated 17.7.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of accident claim form, Ex.OP-2 copy of intimation letter, Ex.OP-3 copy of FIR, Ex.OP-4 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-8 copies of photographs, Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 copies of statements, Ex.OP-11 copy of letter, Ex.OP-12 copy of policy, Ex.OP-13 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OPs.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 27.09.2014, of which FIR number 368 dated 08.12.2014 was recorded in PS City, Sangrur, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the late submission of the intimation about theft of the vehicle to the OPs and late intimation of loss of Activa to the police and the complainant was not having the driving license to drive such a vehicle, as such, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant.

 

6.             Ex.C-2 is the copy of insurance policy. Ex.C-3 is a copy of FIR lodged with the police of PS City Sangrur. In the present case, the repudiation of the claim has been done by the OPs on the two grounds i.e. as per the remarks of investigator Shri Rakesh Kumar Mehta vide his report dated 5.7.2015, received on 16.7.2015, the complainant forgotten his key in the Activa and that the complainant was not having a valid driving license. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that since the complainant was finding the vehicle here and there, and when he did not found the same, he lodged the FIR with the police.  Now, the question for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount or not.  The allegation of the OPs that the complainant left the key of the vehicle in it does not supported by any evidence and this fact is not admitted by the complainant at any point or in any document.  We failed to understand that how Shri Rakesh Kumar Mehta, investigator  came to the conclusion that at the time of theft of the Activa, the key of the same was therein as there is no documentary evidence on file to support this point.  As such, we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops that at the time of theft of the vehicle the key of the same was therein.   Another point that the complainant was not having the driving license at the time of theft, the same fact also falsifies from the copy of the driving license of the complainant, which are on record as Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7. A bare perusal of it shows that the complainant is having a valid driving licence to drive motorcycle, car jeep only and its validity is upto 29.01.2020.  As such, we feel that this allegation of the OPs also fall flat on the ground.  Now, coming to the point of late intimation of the claim with the Ops as well as with the police.  The complainant has contended that since he was finding the vehicle here and there, as such, he did not get the claim registered with the police. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 (HR), wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sukhram Kashyap versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA/13/272, decided on 11.4.2013 by the Chhattisgarh State Commission, wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) has been relied upon, wherein it has been held that the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of policy, the appellant Insurance company ought to have settled the claim on ‘non standard basis”.   Further we find that the OPs are also deficient in rendering service by not considering the merits of the claim and in repudiating the whole claim of the complainant. To support such a contention further, reliance can also be placed on The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Ashish Kumar Chauhan, Appeal No.FA/12/110, instituted on 29.2.2012, decided on 19.7.2012 by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, wherein in similar circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble State Commission ordered the insurance company to pay 75% of the claim amount.

 

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has also cited Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nikhil Seth 2015(4) CPJ 195 (NC), wherein it has been held that the delay in intimation to the insurance company deprives it of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same, as such, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the insured.  But, we feel that in the present case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Compay Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) is fully applicable.

 

8.             Accordingly, we feel that the OPs should atleast settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis, whereas in the present case the Ops have repudiated the claim in whole vide letter dated 17.07.2015, Ex.C-8. Admittedly, in the present case the vehicle in question is insured for Rs.44,870/-, as such, we feel that if calculated 75% of the amount, it comes to Rs.33652/-.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

10.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.33,652/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.09.2015 till realisation.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses. We also direct the complainant to execute the necessary documents, if any for transfer of the vehicle in question as required by the OPs.

 

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 9, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member