DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALWAL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 21 OF 2014
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.02.2014
DATE OF DECISION : 19.03.2015
Devi Singh son of Sh. Jiwan Lal, resident of village Chhajju Nagar, Tehsil Palwal, Distt. Palwal.
.. Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd. 1st Floor, 5C/1-2, Neelam Chowk, Faridabad-121001, through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Dev Vahaan Motors, Palwal, Civil Lines, D.M.Road, Palwal, Corporate Agent Hero Corporate Service Ltd. Agency Code No. 93290101.
..Respondents/Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: JAGBIR SINGH: PRESIDENT
KHUSHWINDER KAUR: MEMBER
R.S.DHARIWAL: MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh.Parveen Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.G.S.Rathore, Adv. for opposite party no.1.
Sh.Y.P.Sharma,Adv. for opposite party no.2.
ORDER:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant
is the registered owner of motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor Plus Drum bearing its registration no. HR-30/D-9733, Engine No. 06K15E51351, Chassis No. 06K16F41642, Model 2006 insured with opposite party no. 1 vide policy no. 35100731116202068964 for the period from 3.12.2011 to 2.12.2012 for a total sum of Rs.19,995/- through its authorized agent i.e opposite party no. 2 at Palwal.
Unfortunately, the vehicle in question was stolen by some
-2-
unknown person on 18.9.2012 near SRS Palwal and FIR No. 357 dated 29.9.2012 under Section 379 IPC was registered. Thereafter, complainant lodged the claim with opposite parties and submitted all the documents required for the claim process. Police authorities submitted the untrace report on 15.12.2012 but neither the claim has been paid by opposite parties nor any satisfactorily reply has been given by them despite of submission of all the required documents and visiting there several times by the complainant.
Legal notice dated 7.10.2013 was served through counsel Sh. Parveen Chaudhary but of no avail. Due to the non cooperative and rigid attitude of opposite parties complainant has suffered mental tension, agony and harassment and hence complainant filed this complaint with a prayer to direct opposite parties to pay Rs.19,995/- i.e. insured declared value of the vehicle in question alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
Upon registering the complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1 appeared before the Forum and filed written statement taking several preliminary objections as the alleged theft took place on 7.9.2012 as per FIR which was got lodged on 29.9.2012 i.e after 22 days of the alleged theft and opposite party no. 1 was also got intimated on 1.10.2012 through claim form no. 58651 , which is clear violation of the terms and condition no. 1 of the insurance policy. As such the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as held in Revision Petition no. 2681 of 2002 decided on 13.5.2003, in the case titled as Devender Singh Vs. new India Assurance Company Limited. Moreover, the complainant himself had left the vehicle unattended and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
The complainant had misled the Forum and wrongly
-3-
mentioned the date of theft as 18.9.2012 instead of 7.7.2012 as per FIR No. 357 dated 29.9.2012.
Further complainant has not provided the untrace report confirmed by Judicial Magistrate despite issuing various letters by opposite party no. 1 and complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct.
However, Opposite party no. 1 submitted that no mental tension, agony and harassment has been caused to the complainant by any act of opposite party no. 1 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complainant with costs.
Opposite party no. 2 appeared before this Forum and submitted its written statement taking preliminary objections of non maintainability, having no cause of action and suppression of true and material facts. Complaint is false, frivolous and malafide and has been filed to harass and humiliate the opposite party no. 2 unnecessarily and to extract hush money from opposite party no. 2 as opposite party no. 2 is merely an agent, he has nothing to do with the claim of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against him.
In support of his claim, the complainant placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he solemnly affirmed the same facts which he enumerated in his complaint.
On the other hand, Sh. P.D.Sharma, Assistant A.O. National Insurance Company of opposite party no.1 placed on record his Affidavit Ex. RW1/A wherein he affirmed and declared the same facts as were enumerated in the reply of opposite party and relied upon the documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7.
Counsel for opposite party no. 2 has made a statement to the effect that reply already on the file be read as his evidence.
-4-
The Forum heard Sh. Parveen Chaudhary Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Sh.G.S.Rathore, Ld.Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Sh. Y.P.Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 at length and have gone through the case file carefully as well as written arguments.
Admittedly, the vehicle in question having Engine No. 06K15E51351, Chassis No. 06K16F41642 belongs to the complainant and was insured with opposite party no. 1 vide policy no. 35100731116202068964 covering the risk from the period from 3.12.2011 to 2.12.2012.
There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle in question has been stolen and FIR No. 357 dated 29.9.2012 was got registered in this regard.
But the dispute is about the date of theft. As per FIR and the stand of the opposite party the theft took place on 7.9.2012 whereas the complainant admits the date of theft as 18.9.2012. In both of the situations the FIR no. 357 dated 29.9.2012 was lodged.
The complainant stated and as is also evident from Ex.R-4, Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 that he had reported the matter immediately to the concerned Police Station Thana Camp and City Palwal and the stand of the complainant is supported by his affidavit.
As the FIR no. 357 dated 29.9.2012 was lodged and intimation was also given to the insurance company, untrace report was also submitted on 15.12.2012 and the claim was filed with opposite party which was repudiated on 28.4.2014 by opposite party on the ground of late intimation, non submission of documents and as the
-5-
vehicle was left unattended by the complainant which is not justified in the view of the Forum. Such type of approach is against equity and natural justice. Complainant should not suffer on the basis of mere technicalities.
Perusal of the record on file establishes that it is a genuine claim case. The written intimation was given to the Police Station, Camp Palwal on 18.9.2012 on the date of theft itself but FIR was lodged on 29.9.2012. Mere delay in lodging FIR which is attributable to the police authorities is no ground to reject a genuine claim. Moreover, insurance company cannot escape its liability on the ground of non supplying of documents. As such Forum held opposite party no. 1 guilty of not providing proper services to the complainant.
This case squarely comes in the purview of law settled in the case titled as Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 wherein the reference of the circular IRDA(Insurance Regulatory Development Authority) has been given.
It has been specifically mentioned by IRDA as there may be the condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take shelter in that condition and repudiate the claim which is otherwise proved to be genuine.
Moreover, in Ex.RW1/A the Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 1 submitted that the vehicle was left unattended by the son of the complainant but it was negated by Ex.R-4, Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7 submitted by the opposite party no. 1 itself. As such the complaint is allowed and opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question i.e Rs.19,995/- alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment as
-6-
well as Rs. 2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which opposite party no.1 would be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- alognwith above award.
As opposite party no. 2 is the agent of opposite party no. 1 and he has nothing to do with the present claim and complaint hence no case stands against opposite party no.2. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room. This order of the Forum is running into 6 pages and each page of this order have been signed by this Forum.
Announced on:19.03.2015 (JAGBIR SINGH)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Palwal.
(KHUSHWINDER KAUR)
Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal
(R.S.DHARIWAL)
Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
