Delhi

North

CC/314/2016

RAMAN YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.: 314/2016.

 

Raman Yadav,

S/o Late Sh. Satbir Singh,

Village and post Jaffar Pur,

New Delhi.

 

Rashmi W/o Sh. Balwan Yadav

D/o Late Sh. Satbir Singh,

H. No.316 Village,

Post Office Kapashera,

New Delhi.

 

Pragya W/o Sh. Yuvraj Yadav

D/o Late Sh. Satbir Singh,

H. No.308, Main Market,

Kapashera, New Delhi.

 

Usha W/o Sh. Yashpal Singh

D/o Late Sh. Satbir Singh,

H. No.146, Rao Matadin Block,

New Colony Kapashera,

New Delhi.                                                                                                                     …                Complainants                                                   

 

                                                                                                   Vs

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office No.13 (Code:271600)

23/23 B, EMCA House, 1^st Floor,

Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,

New Delhi-110002.

 

Also at:

Regd. Office:

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Oriental House,

Post Box No.7037, A-25/27,

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.                                                                              …                         Opposite Party

         

02/09/2023

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

(1)      The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that the complainant’s father (late Sh. Satbir Singh) had got his vehicle insured with the OP as per details given below:-

1. Vehicle Registration No.: HR-63A-3214

2. Make & Model: Truck/ Tata 2512

3. Engine Model: 697TC57LTZ158782

4. Vehicle ID Value: Rs 11,40,000

5. Policy No.: 31/2007/2168

6. Period of Insurance: 15/12/2006 to 14/12/2007

 

(2)      It has been stated by the Complainant that on the night of 17/07/2007, the driver of the above mentioned Truck owned by the complainant’s father was driving the truck from Bahadurgarh (Haryana) to Durgapur (West Bengal). The driver was also accompanied by helper/cleaner. Around 10:30 PM at Kheda Khalilpur pulia, a dumper suddenly overtook the truck and stopped in front of them and 6-8 persons got down from the dumper. They took over the vehicle and tied the hands of the driver and helper and dumped them in Bhootal village. The truck was stolen and both of them reported the incident to the police. On the statement of the driver (Kanwar Singh), FIR no. 215/2007 under Section 395/397 IPC was registered at P.S. Sohna, Gurgaon. The complainant’s father lodged the claim at the office of the OP for the loss of truck along with the FIR on 25.07.2007 and in response, the OP asked to submit a report under Section 173, CrPC duly accepted by the concerned court. The complainant’s father was pursuing his case before the P.S., Sohna, Gurgaon but the police officials were only giving assurances to him that they are trying find out the vehicle as well as the culprits involved. The complainant’s father visited the OP’s office and told them that Police didn’t issue the truck’s untraced report to which the officials told him clearly that unless he provides the untraced report under Section 173 CrPC duly accepted by the concerned court, they cannot pass the claim for the loss of his truck. In June 2012, the complainant’s father passed away and the complainants being the legal representatives, started pursuing the matter before the Police and after great efforts ultimately, the police filed the report under Section 173 CrPC before the concerned court at Sohna, Gurgaon, closing the matter stating that neither the truck nor the culprits were apprehended. Thereafter, the truck driver (complainant in the FIR) was summoned in the court and the court handed over the final report under Section 173 CrPC in July,2015. After receiving the untraced report, the complainant went to the OP’s office and deposited the processing letter along with the certified copy Under Section 173, CrPC duly accepted by the court,  against receipt dated 31/08/2015. The complainants had been running behind the OP since then, who were being informed that his claim is under process. Finally, the OP informed that the claim cannot be passed due to delay in filing the report under Section 173 CrPC. The complainant has contended that  filing report under Section 173, CrPC was not under the complainant’s control as it had to be done by the police and as soon as, the complainants got the report, the certified copy was filed to the OP. Therefore, the OP cannot blame the complainant regarding the delay in filing report under Section 173, CrPC. Aggrieved by this, the complainants have sent a legal notice dated 14/09/2016 to OP, through speed post, in turn the OP had replied to the legal notice on 23/09/2016 stating that OP had already repudiated the claim. The complainants have stated that the act of the OP has caused mental harassment, mental tension, and agony. Also, the OP has committed the criminal breach of trust as well as deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice. The Complainant has filed this complaint praying that:-

1. The OP may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.11,40,000/- which is IDV of vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. from the day of lodging claim by the Complainant.
2. The OP may kindly be directed to pay the amount Rs.1,00,000/- as the compensation for the mental agony harassment, legal and for other incidental expenses to the Complainant.
3. Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in this matter may also be passed in favour of the Complainant and against the OP in the interest of justice.

(3)      The complainants have also filed following documents to establish the allegations levelled in the complaint and prayer:-

1. Copy of the cover note issued by the insurance company.
2. Death certificate of the insured Sh. Satbir Singh 
3. Copy of the driving license of driver Kanwar Singh and the FIR
4. Copy of the claim intimation letter
5. Copy of the certificate of registration
6. Copy of report under Section 173 CrPC
7. Copy of order of court
8. Copy of legal notice dated 14/09/2016 sent to the OP
9. Copy of reply given by the OP dated 23/09/2016
10. Copy of court order dated 11/08/2011
11. Copy of letter dated 29/07/2015 written to the SHO, P.S. Sohna.  
12. Copy of letter dated 31/08/2015 informing the OP regarding the submission of the pending documents.

 

(4)      Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that the claim was rejected due to non- submission of required documents by the OP for the claim settlement. The OP has stated that the complaint filed is hopelessly barred by period of limitation and the complainant Sh. Raman has no locus standi or authority to file the present complaint. The OP has further stated that the complainant’s father did get the vehicle insured with the office of the OP. However, it is submitted that the liability of insurance company under the policy was subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. During the period of the policy, a claim was lodged by the insured (Mr. Satbir Singh, complainant’s father) on account of the aforesaid truck. After receiving claim intimation, the OP had appointed an independent investigator to investigate the complainant’s claim. The surveyor who submitted its report on 05/12/2007 and after receiving the report the OP had sent a letter to the complainant date 24/12/2007 seeking following documents:-

          a.        Final untrace report under Section 173 CrPC

b.        Copy of the letter written to the concerned RTO

                              to  keep the file in safe custody 

c.       A copy of letter to police authority

to hand over the vehicle in question if found.

 

(5)      The OP has further stated that on receipt of no reply from the complainant’s side, reminders letters dated 14/02/2008, 04/03/2008, 14/03/2008, 23/04/2008, 29/05/2008, 16/06/2008 were also sent. Finally, the OP through its letter dated 30/06/2008 had informed the insured (complainant’s father) that he has failed to submit the relevant documents and inspite of writing repeated letters, the competent authority of the OP has repudiated the claim due to non-submission of documents and closed the file as “No Claim”. The OP has further stated that the insured himself is responsible for non-settlement of the claim as he failed to provide the necessary documents to the OP. The OP has also stated that after a gap of 7 years, a letter dated 31/08/2015 was received from the complainant submitting two documents viz processing letter and certified copy of final report under Section 173 CrPC. The said letter was followed by a legal notice dated 14/09/2016 sent on behalf of the insured’s son Sh. Raman Yadav(complainant) allegedly showing himself as the legal representative/son of the insured Sh. Satbir Singh which was replied on 23/09/2016. The OP has further contended that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. The OP has also contended that no sincere efforts were made by the insured in obtaining the untrace report under S.173 CrPC.  The OP has also submitted the following documents to rebut the allegations levelled in the complaint:-

1. Certified copy of the insurance policy along with the terms and conditions;
2. Photocopy of the letter dated 24/12/2007 informing the complainant to provide the documents;
3. Photocopy of the letters dated 14/02/2008, 04/03/2008, 14/03/2008, 23/04/2008, 29/05/2008, 16/06/2008;
4. Copy of the Repudiation letter dated 30/06/2008.

 

6.       Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

1. It is not in dispute that the vehicle/ truck was properly insured by the OP with the IDV of Rs.11,40,000/- and it was stolen.
2. The owner of the vehicle  (Late Sh. Satbir Singh) has intimated the OP regarding the incident alongwith the copy of FIR on 25.07.2007.
3. The OP claims that the claim was repudiated on the ground that Sh. Satbir Singh/ owner of the vehicle/ father of the Complainants could not submit the required documents which were sought vide letters dated 24.12.2007, 14.02.2008, 04.03.2008, 14.03.2008, 23.04.2008, 29.05.2008 & 16.06.2008. Thereafter, the claim repudiation was also intimated vide registered letter dated 30.06.2008.  To substantiate its contention,  the OP has also filed copies all the above letters alongwith one speed post envelope stated to have been sent to Sh. Satbir Singh and one copy of acknowledgement of registered letter sent through Daryaganj post office on 17.06.2008. Besides a copy of acknowledgement of registered letter sent on 05.07.2008 has also been enclosed with the repudiation letter 30.06.2008. On perusal of these letters and repudiation letter filed by the OP,  it has been found that these letters have been issued with incomplete address i.e.” Satbir Singh, Vill. & PO Dr. Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi”  whereas the exact address of the owner/ father of the Complainants is “Satbir Singh, 98 Jaffarpur Kalan Village, New Delhi” as available with the OP which is evident from the copy of policy schedule filed by OP alongwith its reply. Further, the OP has not filed any evidence of proper delivery of the remaining five letters dated 14.02.2008, 04.03.2008, 14.03.2008, 23.04.2008  and 29.05.2008 which raises doubt over the proper delivery of these communications of OP to late Sh. Satbir Singh to enable him to take up the matter with concerned authorities to complete the requirements of the documents sought by OP. In addition, it has also been noted that photocopy of the envelope of speed post-dated 24.12.2007 (which appears to be related to the dispatch of first letter dated 24.12.2007), the address of addressee Sh. Satbir Singh has also been cut off probably being a wrong address and the letter would have been returned back/Delivered to the OP. Further, the acknowledgment of Postal Department dated 17.06.2008 and 05.07.2008 does not bear the signature of Sh. Satbir Singh to prove that these letters have been delivered to him.
4. It has been seen from the repudiation letter dated 30.06.2008, the following documents were required by the OP to settle the claim;

1. Final Untrace report alongwith Sec 173 Crpc report duly accepted by honourable Court.
2. Copy of letter to RTO to keep the file in safe custody
3. Copy of letter to Police Authority to hand over the vehicle, if found

and thereafter on 23.09.2016, the OP has intimated the Advocate of the Complainants that the claim is not admissible available a gap of seven years as per Limitation Act, 1963 which appears unjustified considering the fact that the Untrace report was accepted by Hon’ble Court of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sohna on 01.07.2015 and the Complainant after receiving the same has deposited with the OP on 31.08.2015. As such, the delay in submission the Untrace report was beyond the control of the Complainant and Complainant has submitted the same to the OP on 31.08.2015 its receipt from concerned authorities.

5. Late Sh. Satbir Singh had intimated the theft to the OP on 25.07.2007 alongwith FIR which should have been taken into consideration by the OP to process the claim rather it has repudiated the claim under the garb of the report of the Investigator which has not been shared with the Complainant or in its reply filed before this Commission. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No.4071/2022 in the matter of Gurmel Singh Vs. M/s NIC Ltd. passed on 20.5.2022 is also relevant in the matter wherein it has been held that “Insurance Company should not refuse the claim on technical or flimsy grounds. Insurance Company should not ask for the documents which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control”.  Besides, the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No.1069/2022 in the matter of Jaina Construction Company Vs. M/s OIC Ltd. passed on 11.02.2022 is also relevant in the matter wherein it has also been held that “Insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on the ground of late intimation of the theft if the FIR is lodged in time.”
6. The contention of the OP that Complainant has no locus standi or authority to file this complaint as late Sh. Satbir Singh got the stolen vehicle insured with the OP. This contention is not justified as the LRs of late Sh. Satbir Singh has been impleaded as Consumer in this case vide order dated 15.05.2018 and the OP did not objected to this. As such, the complainants are entitled to  seek relief by way of filing this complaint.

7.       In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the repudiation/ non-processing of the claim by the OP is unjustified which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP by which the complainants have suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP (M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) to pay Rs.11,40,000 /- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty Thousand only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 25.07.2007 ( the date of intimation dated 25.07.2007 given to the OP by late Sh. Satbir Singh/father of the Complainant) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

8.       Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                        HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                             Member                                                                                   Member

                                   DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                  DCDRC-1 (North)

 

 

                                        DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR                          

                                             President       

                                  DCDRC-1 (North)