BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 153 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 23.2.2010.
Date of Decision: 29.5.2015.
Shamsher Singh aged about 47 years, son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of Kalyana, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Oriental House, P.B. No.7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110 002 and one of its Divisional Office at Model Town, Rohtak, through its Managing Director.
- Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
- Tata Motors Financial Services Ltd. having its registered office at Nanavati Mahalaya, 3rd Floor, 18, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai- 400 001, through its Managing Director.
- Branch Manager, Tata Motors, Financial Services Ltd. Rohtak Branch Ground Floor, HB complex, Near PGIMS, Rohtak-124001.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Smt. Poonam Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.
Shri K.Acharya, Adv. for OPs No.3 & 4.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he got financed his vehicle bearing registration No.HR61/3585 from respondent No.4 vide agreement dated 9.5.2007. It is alleged that the above said vehicle was insured from respondent No.1 vide insurance policy bearing No.261204 dated 19.3.2007 and the same was valid up to 19.3.2008. It is further alleged that in the intervening night of 13/14th November, 2007 the above said insured vehicle was stolen in the area of Police Station, Nangloi and could not be traced out even after the best efforts of the police. It is further alleged that FIR No.869 dated 14.11.2007 was recorded in Police Station, Nangloi by Rajpal son of Shri Chander Singh who was driver of the alleged vehicle. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the insurance company but his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.1.2010 on false and baseless grounds. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent company and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the respondents No.1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that on receipt of information from the complainant the respondents company deputed an independent surveyor to investigate the theft of vehicle bearing No.HR-61/3585 and to submit other related documents for further processing of claim. It is submitted that the complainant did not cooperate the insurance company by not producing the route permit or permission entry for carrying the goods to Delhi State. It is also submitted that the complainant was holding only public carrier permit which was valid up to 24.4.2010. It is further submitted that on verification it was found that at the time of alleged theft the vehicle in question was not having route permit or permission entry which was very essential as per provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the claim of the complainant was repudiated and he was informed accordingly vide letter dated 20.1.2010. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent company and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Respondent No.3 & 4 on appearance filed separate written statement admitting to the extent that in the intervening night of 13/14th November, 2007 the above said insured vehicle was stolen. It is submitted that as per loan agreement complainant has advanced a sum of Rs.4,91,260/- (Rs.3,85,000/- being the finance amount and Rs.1,06,260/- on account of finance charges) which was to be repayable in 35 monthly installments. It is also submitted that the complainant has undertake that the payment of loan installment shall not be stopped for any reason whatsoever. It is also submitted that on 4.12.2010 an amount of Rs.6,50,959.55 still outstanding in the loan account of the complainant and as such he is liable to deposit the same with the answering respondents. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 photo stat coy of letter dated 23.5.2007 along with PDC list, Annexure C2 photo stat copy of policy schedule, Annexure C3 Photo stat copy of FIR, Annexure C4 Photo stat copy of letter written to RTO, Annexure C5 Photo stat copy of Final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C, Annexure C6 photo stat copy of untraced report, Annexure C7 Photo stat copy of site plan, Annexure C8 Photo stat copy of Message Form, Annexure C9 Photo stat copy of letter dated 20.1.2010, Annexure C10 & C11 Photo stat copies of legal notices, Annexure C12 photo stat copy of re-call notices, Annexure C12 & C14/1 Photo stat copies of reply to legal notice, Annexure C14 Postal receipt, Annexure C15 Photo stat copy of AD, Annexure C16 Photo stat copy of RC, Annexure C17 & C19 Photo stat copies of Carrier’s Permit, Annexure C18 Fitness Certificate, Annexure C20/1 Photo stat copy of letter, Annexure C20 photo stat copy of receipt along with affidavit dated 19.2.2010
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 to R3 Photostat copies of letter dated 20.1.2010, 14.9.2009 and 17.4.2009, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of investigation report, Annexure R5 Photo stat copy of Public Carrier Permit, Annexure R6 Photo stat copy of Policy Schedule along with supporting affidavits of Shri Rajender Singh, Sr. DM, OIC and Shri Mahipal Singh, Authorized Signatory, TATA Motors Finance Ltd.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. She has also referred the written arguments filed by her on behalf of the complainant along with documents FIR No.869 dated 14.11.2007 Annexure C3, untraced report dated 21.1.2008 Annexure C5, letter Annexure C6 issued by the concerned police to the complainant regarding untraced of the vehicle, Registration Certificate of the vehicle Annexure C16, Repudiation letter Annexure C9. She submitted that the Ops No.1 & 2 could have settled the claim of the complainant on “Non Standard Basis” in view of the Judgment of Hon”ble Supreme Court of India in case National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Nitin Khandelwal, Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2008 decided on 8.5.2008.
8. The Counsel for Ops No.1, 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of the complaint in their reply, respectively. Counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 vehemently argued that as per intimation given by the complainant to Ops No.1 & 2, vehicle in question was forcibly snatched by three persons from the driver of the vehicle. While as per FIR No.869 dated 14.11.2007 the vehicle in question has been stolen from Nangloi (Delhi) in the midnight and said FIR was registered under Section 379 IPC with the concerned Police Station. He submitted that the complainant was not having valid route permit for Delhi which is contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act and the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. In support of his contention he has relied upon following judgments IV (2005) CPJ Page 115 (NC) titled as UIIC Ltd. Versus Dharam Raj and II(2008) CPJ page 271 titled as UIIC Ltd. Versus Sangeeta Sinha.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant record carefully. Admittedly, the complainant was having route permit valid for Haryana only. Thus by taking the vehicle in question out of Haryana without valid route permit, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Theft of the vehicle is proved from FIR Annexure C3 and Final Untraced Report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. Annexure C5. There is no denying the fact that the complainant had obtained insurance policy from the insurance company and under the said policy the complainant is liable to get the claim. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft or it is taken away by the culprits forcibly. The case of the complainant falls within the ambit of the facts of Nitin Khandelwal’s case (Supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said case has held as under:-
“The instant case relates to the theft of the car. It is not a case of third party risk. In the instant case, the vehicle has not been recovered. It is also incorporated in the counter affidavit that it is not disputed that the vehicle was comprehensively insured. Since the vehicle in question had been stolen, therefore, in the case of theft of vehicle, the breach of condition is not germane”.
10. In view of the law laid down by Hon”ble Supreme Court of India in Nitin Khandelwal”s case (Supra) we hold that Ops No.1 & 2 should have settled the claim of the complainant at 75% of the insured amount on “Non Standard Basis”. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and Ops No.1 & 2 are directed to pay 75% of the insured amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. The Ops No.1 & 2, while making payment of the awarded amount shall consider the valid and legal claim of Ops No.3 & 4. No order as to costs.
The compliance of the order shall be made by Ops No.1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: .29.5.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member
