Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/33/2022

Raj Paul Bhaker - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

A.K Vashisth

24 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                     Complaint Case No. : 33 of 2022

                                                                     Date of Institution    : 17.02.2022

                                                                     Date of decision:      : 24.06.2024

 

Raj Paul Bhaker son of Sh. Kurda Ram Bhaker R/o H.No.107, Vijay Nagar, Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant 

 

                                                    Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Circular Road, Ghanta Ghar, Opposite State Bank of India, Bhiwani-127021 through its Branch Manager.

 

...Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Ashok Kumar Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant purchased an insurance policy for his Alto Car bearing registration no.HR-16E-6539 for a period from 24.03.2019 to 23.03.2020.  It is submitted that since the purchase of the car in 2006, complainant has been continuously getting his car insured from OP. He has alleged that market value of the car was Rs.1,50,000/-. It is stated that on 23.01.2020, the vehicle was stolen from Gurugram and FIR No.25 dated 23.01.2020 at P.S. Sector 14 Gurugram under Section 379 IPC was registered.  Complainant has submitted that he intimated the OP about the occurrence and it was advised to submit the claim after police investigation.  The vehicle was not found and untraced report submitted by police before Ld. JMIC, Gurugram which was accepted by the Court vide order dated 19.10.2020. Claim was submitted with the OP but the OP did not release the claim amount on one pretext or the other.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant as market value of the car against the policy. Further to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation for harassment besides Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. Interest has been sought @ 12% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of theft i.e. 23.01.2020 till actual realization.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it w.e.f. 24.03.2019 to 23.03.2020 for an IDV of Rs.45,000/- subject to terms and condition of the policy. It is denied that value of the car was Rs.1,50,000/-. Further they had received information of theft of the car on 17.11.2020 whereas it was stolen on 23.01.2020. Matter was investigated, report dated 09.03.2021 received, upon which, letter dated 19.03.2021 was sent to complainant for submission of some clarifications qua inordinate delay in intimation the OP insurance company and with regard original keys of the vehicle. However, complainant failed to comply the letter of OP as such, the claim was repudiated vide order dated 26.03.2021. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                 Complainant in evidence, tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents  Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence.  

4.                 On the other side, Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. Mohit Pahal, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A alongwith  documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.

6.                 At the outset, it is evident from insurance policy (Annexure R-1) reveals that IDV of the vehicle was Rs.45,000/- during the insurance period. Perusal of repudiation letter (Annexure R-6) reveals that  claim of complainant had been repudiated on account of inordinate delay of 10 months in giving intimation to the OP insurance company, further both the keys so submitted by complainant to insurance company were duplicate and no FIR was lodged qua misplacing of the keys.

7.                 Complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file, copy of FIR (Ex. C-2) dated 23.01.2020 which lodged with regard to theft of the vehicle in question from Gurugram. He has also placed on record documents Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-3A which shows that the vehicle could not be traced out during investigation of the police and Court concerned accepted the same vide order dated 19.10.2020.  From documents Ex. C-7, it is proved on record that complainant is owner of the stolen vehicle. In this regard, learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.653 of 2020 titled Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. &Anr. decided on 24.01.2020 wherein it has been observed that ‘Delay in intimating the insurance company about occurrence of theft no ground to deny claim.’

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the considered view that on the day of theft, the vehicle was under insurance cover and despite best efforts by police, it has not been traced out and the Court concerned accepted such report of the police. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get IDV of the vehicle.  It is quite right that there was delay of about 10 months in intimating the occurrence to the OP insurance company but such delay has been explained in para No.5 of the complaint. Furthermore, the FIR is of the day of theft of the vehicle and the claim before the OP insurance company submitted by complainant within one month of acceptance of untraced report by the Court.  However, the case law (supra) relied upon by the counsel for complainant is much helpful to the present case. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within forty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs. Forty five thousand) as IDV of the vehicle in question, to the complainant 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 complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of OP.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:24.06.2024.