BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 114 of 2014
Date of Institution : 20.8.2014
Date of Decision : 27.4.2016
Gurpreet Singh son of Sh.Kuldeep Singh, resident of H.No.269, B-Block, Sirsa, now at Panchkula.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office 2089, the Mall Bathinda (Pb.) through its Divisional Manager.
2. . National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Sirsa through its Divisional Manager.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.V.P.Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he is the registered owner of car Verna bearing registration No. HR-51AM-0013, which was duly insured with National Insurance Company i.e. with the opposite parties, for the period from 14.2.2011 to 13.2.2012 vide policy No. 401000/31/10/6100005953. On 6.2.2012, the car was stolen by some unknown person, when it was parked outside his house. The theft was immediately informed to the police and then FIR no.70 dated 7.2.2012 under Section 379 IPC was registered in concerned police station of City Sirsa. The theft was also immediately informed to the insurance company. The police submitted non-traceable report of the said car. The copy of FIR and Non-traceable report were duly supplied to the company, but the reimbursement of insured amount has been delayed by the opposite parties malafidely and deliberately by raising the demand of different documents. The claim was lodged by the complainant on 7.2.2012 with the company. Thereafter, the complainant moved before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirsa for amicable solution at pre-litigative stage, but there also nothing was mentioned by the opposite parties that what requirements are to be fulfilled by the complainant. The Permanent Lok Adalat passed the order dt. 5.5.2014 by giving observations that “respondent is directed to finalize the case of petitioner within a period of 30 days and petitioner is directed to submit all the necessary documents and furnish the information required for the decision of the case. Now, the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the pretext of flimsy ground that keys supplied by the complainant to company do not tally with the keys given by company, which is wrong and non-speaking. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite parties, for payment of insurance amount of Rs.8,25201/-, with upto date interest, besides damages for harassment, humiliation, mental agony etc. and also for litigation expenses.
2. The opposite parties have filed its reply pleading for the legality and validity of the repudiation of the claim of the complainant. It is pleaded that the complaint moved by the complainant before the Permanent Lok Adalat was dismissed on 2.5.2014 being pre-mature with the directions to submit the required documents demanded by the company for the decision of the case, but the complainant had not submitted all the required documents inspite of repeated demands of Ops and thus, his claim was repudiated on the grounds mentioned in letter dt. 25.3.2014. Further, the keys deposited by the complainant with the Ops were not original keys as verified by the Ops through their investigator Sh.Rajesh Mehta, Advocate and the Dealers of the vehicle confirmed that the keys supplied by the complainant were not original .
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and Ex.C12 to Ex.C15 -copies of various letters sent by the insurance company to the complainant dated 28.5.2014, 25.3.2014, 27.2.2012; 13.3.2012, 29.3.2012, 7.9.2012, 3.10.2012, 27.11.2012, 27.9.2013, 4.10.2013, 28.10.2013 and 26.2.2014 respectively; Ex.C11 is copy of repudiation letter dt. 10.12.2013; Ex.C16-copy of RC; Ex.C17-copy of rapat no.17 dt. 15.2.2012; Ex.C18-copy of FIR; Ex.C19-Fional report form; Ex.C20-copy of statement of complainant; Ex.C21-copy of order regarding untraced report; Ex.C22-copy of insurance cover note; Ex.C23-copy of registration certificate; Ex.C24-copy of order dt. 5.5.2014 passed by PLA, Sirsa
4. In reply thereto, opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1-supporting affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kamboj, its Asstt. Manager; Ex.R2-copy of request sent by complainant to ops dated 30.10.2012; Ex.P3-copy of report of Surveyor; Ex.P4- copy of letter dt. 4.12.2013 of Dealer Raja M.Huyndai to written NIC regarding confirmation; Ex.P5-copy of retail invoice; Ex.P6 and Ex.P7-copies of letters dt. 26.2.2014 and Nil written by opposite parties to the complainant.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties. We are of the considered opinion that there is every merit in the case of the complainant, as his genuine claim has been illegally and invalidly repudiated, which is certainly deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. There is no dispute before us that complainant was the registered owner of Car Verna bearing registration No. HR-51AM-0013, which was duly insured with the insurance company, for the period from 14.2.2011 to 13.2.2012, for insured amount of Rs.8,25,201/-. It is also so evident by copy of insurance policy Ex.C22. There is also no dispute before us that car was stolen when it was parked outside the house of complainant.
7. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd., vide their letter Ex.C4 placed on record by the complainant. In this letter, the company rejected the claim mainly on the ground that as per their version, the keys of the vehicle returned by the complainant were not the same which were supplied by the Dealer to him at the time of sale of the vehicle. Company took this procedure on the report of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate, who was deputed by the company to verify the documents and keys from the Dealer of the vehicle. We have perused the report of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate placed on record as Ex.P3 and report of Raja Motors placed on record as Ex.P4. In both these documents, nowhere it is mentioned that the keys returned by the complainant were not the same as were supplied by the Dealer at the time of purchase of vehicle. Relevant portion of the report of Mr.Mehta, Advocate is reproduced as under:-
“It is certified that we have sold Verna SX BSIV to Mr.Gurpreet Singh, r/o House no.269, Opp. GRG School, B-Block, Sirsa (Haryana), Chassis/VIN No.MALCN41VLBM102603 *B and engine No.D4FAAU927018 with key No.V0279 on dt. 15.2.2011 vide invoice No.H201000492. The abovesaid two keys no.V0279 were handed over to the purchaser by us at the time of delivery of the abovesaid vehicle which were provided to us by manufacturer. Except the abovesaid keys no other key can be used for abovesaid vehicle”.
Keeping in view the abovesaid discussion, we reached at the conclusion that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Ops on just flimsy grounds, which have no weightage in the eyes of law. It is nothing, but deficiency of service on its part.
8. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to insurance company i.e. to the opposite parties, to pay insured amount of Rs.8,25,201/- to the complainant, with upto date interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of complaint i.e. 20.8.2014, till payment. The complainant is also hereby allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- for his harassment, humiliation, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. Compliance of this order shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:27.4.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
