Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/108/2019

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Dariya Singh

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                    Complaint Case No. : 108 of 2019

                                                                    Date of Institution    :  10.04.2019

                                                                    Date of decision       :  28.10.2024

 

Sandeep Singh son of Sh.Dharambir Singh R/o village Dhanana-III, Tehsil and District Bhiwani C/o Gajender son of Sh. Om Singh R/o VOP Barsi, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.

                                                  ...Complainant 

                                                                                                   

                                                    Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., having one of its Branch at Circular Road, Opposite Nehru Park, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Manager/authorized signatory.

...Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

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

                    Ms.  Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Naresh Gautam and Sh.Narender Kumar, Advocates

for complainant.

Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of a Motor Cab Mahindra XYLO bearing registration No.HR-61B-6208 (in short the vehicle) got it insured from OP for a period from 22.04.2015 to 21.04.2016.  It is submitted that on 19.10.2015 at about 12:00 p.m., the vehicle was stolen from the Tehsil office, Bawani Khera. Intimation in this regard was given to P.S. Bawani Khera where FIR No.270 dated 19.10.2015 under Section 379 was lodged.  OP company was also informed and required paper formalities were done to settle the claim. The vehicle was traced out by the police in an accidental and damaged condition. Upon information, OP insurance company visited the placed of accident and submitted his report to OP insurance company. However, the OP insurance company did not release the claim amount and kept pending the matter about 3 ½ years. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP resulting into monetary loss to him besides mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.7,10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till its realization. Further to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment besides and also to pay Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.  

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, estoppel against complainant, locus standi and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that on information qua theft of the vehicle, Sh. Vinod Kumar Chahar, Advocate was deputed for investigation into the matter who submitted his report dated 28.06.2016. Thereafter, OP insurance company sent letter dated 12.07.2016 to the complainant requiring to product documents: untraced report, NCRB report, copy of registered letter with proof/receipt of Regd. to the SP regarding handing over the stolen vehicle to the company if it is recovered and copy of registered letter with proof/receipt of registered to RTA for safe custody of RC of vehicle but the complainant failed to submit the required documents despite reminders dated 08.09.2016 and 08.02.2017. It is specifically denied that no information by complainant was given to OP insurance company qua recovery of the stolen vehicle by police. So, vide letter dated 07.04.2017, claim of complainant was repudiated under intimation to him. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on the part of OP company and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence of complainant, affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-22 were placed on record and closed the evidence on 21.03.2023.

4.                 On the other side, Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms Piya Tapwal, I/c Legal Hub alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex. R-4 and closed the evidence on 12.02.2024.  

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

6.                 Complainant in order to prove his case has placed on record copy of FIR (Annexure C-1) whereby it is observed that the vehicle in question was stolen on 19.10.2015 and as per insurance policy (Annexure C-6), the vehicle, on the day of theft, was under insurance cover having IDV of Rs.7,10,000/-. It is evident from the copy of registration certificate (Annexure C-7) that  complainant is registered owner the vehicle in question. It is evident from the Superdari orders of the vehicle in question (Annexure C-17) that the vehicle was traced out by the police and it was released on superdari to the complainant. Annexure C-10 reveals that the police recovered the vehicle and as per letter Annexure C-16 issued by OP insurance company, the repairs cost of the vehicle was got assessed from authorized service center vide Annexure C-18 which shows repair cost of the vehicle as Rs.14,41,775/-. Thus Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that despite lodging of claim and submitting all necessary documents with the OP insurance company has not released the claim which has caused monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

7.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP has argued that the claim to the complainant was denied for want of some documents to process the claim  vide letter dated 12.07.2016 viz. untraced report, NCRB report, copy of registered letter with proof/receipt to the SP regarding handing over the stolen vehicle to the company if it is recovered and copy of registered letter with proof/receipt to RTA for safe custody of RC of vehicle but the complainant failed to submit the required documents despite reminders dated 08.09.2016 and 08.02.2017.  As such, learned counsel vehemently argued for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

8.                 After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that since the vehicle had recovered by the police, therefore, no question arise for untraced report of the vehicle. Further there are sufficient documents available on case file which shows that the vehicle was recovered by the police and the OP insurance company vide its letter dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure C-16) directed the complainant to get the vehicle released on superdari and also to get surveyed the vehicle to assess repairs cost of the vehicle from any authorized workshop. Accordingly, the complainant get the vehicle surveyed and as per Annexure C-19, the repairs cost of the vehicle was more than double of the IDV of the vehicle. Meaning thereby that the fact qua recovery of the vehicle by the police was well within the knowledge of the OP insurance company but despite that they are pleading no knowledge to them about recovery of the vehicle which is a clear cut example of unfair trade practice on their part. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per pleadings of complainant and his affidavit, he has submitted the required documents already with the OP insurance company more so, the documents annexed by complainant with this case file are sufficient to process the claim of complainant but the OP insurance company never come forward to seek assistance of the Commission to get the documents so that the matter could be resolved which is pending since the year 2019. To answer a query of this Commission, Learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments has submitted that the amount under loan agreement/HPA qua the vehicle in question has already paid by complainant to the financier and the vehicle is lying with the complainant having value of about Rs.1.00 lac. Such, value of the vehicle has also not been disputed by the OP side. As such, the value of the recovered vehicle is assessed to Rs.1,00,000/-.

9.                 In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that repudiation of the claim of complainant by OP insurance company was an act of unfair trade practice as well as negligent behavior and deficiency in service on their part and complainant is entitled to get IDV of the vehicle minus Rs.1.00 lac alongwith compensation for harassment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- (Rs. Six lac Ten thousand) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization subject to execution of letter of Subrogation and all other formalities qua transfer of the vehicle in the name of OP insurance company within 15 days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.

(ii)      And to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) 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 within rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:28.10.2024