Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/275

M/s Moudgil Trading Group - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

21 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:275 dated 06.06.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 21.08.2023.

 

1. M/s. Moudgil Trading Group, Dugri Road, Near Grand Marrian Hotel, Toor Complex, Ludhiana     through Prop. Rajan Moudgill.
2. Rajan Moudgill, Prop. M/s. Moudgil Trading Group, Dugri Road, Near Grand Marrian Hotel, Toor Complex, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                 ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Servicing Office of Insurer: Divisional Office Shree Krishna Plaza, 100Ft Road, Shobhagpunj Udaipur, Rajasthan (State Code-08)-313011 through authorized signatory.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., CBO-V, Indl Area A, Ludhiana-141008 through authorized signatory.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Sona Complex, near Fire Brigade, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, udhiana-141003 through claim service centre.
4. IndusInd Bank Limited, SCO 12-13, Kanal Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.                                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Complaint against OP4 not admitted vide order                                            dated 14.06.2019.

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant No.2, for self employment and for earning livelihood, purchased truck Tata 409 bearing temporary registration No.PB-10-EZ-1799 from Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana for Rs.9,65,000/- vide invoice dated 22.11.2017 financed by IndusInd Bank Ltd., Ludhiana. The truck was insured with the OPs vide policy No.2425596/31/2018/TMC/31954 which was valid from 22.11.2017 to 22.11.2018 against IDV of Rs.10,11,750/- (after deducting 5% of gross value) for a premium of Rs.17,598/-. The complainants further stated that in the intervening night of 31.03.2018 to 01.04.2018, the truck was stolen by someone in front of petrol pump near office of the brother opp. GNE College, Gill Road, Ludhiana where it was parked along with the other vehicles. According to the complainant as per GPS system installed in the vehicle, its location was shown to Sonipat but the truck was not found despite best efforts. In this regard, the complainant informed the police as well as opposite parties. An FIR No.76 dated 07.04.2018 was registered by Police Station Dugri, Ludhiana. The complainant submitted the formalities to investigator and opposite parties. Opposite party No.3 vide letter dated 16.04.2019 informed the complainant that his claim for Rs.6,86,562/- being 75% of the assessed amount as full and final settlement subject to fulfill of formalities as per Sr. 2 to 9 in the said letter, in response to which the complainant vide his letter dated 24.04.2019 asked for reason of settling the claim as 75% of the value of the vehicle. Opposite party No.3 vide its letter dated 24.04.2019 gave reply that competent authority has settled the claim for Rs.6,86,582/- being 75% of the assessed amount of Rs.9,16,000/- (Rs.9,65,000/- invoice value minus 5%) because

i)       Neither the bill for fabricating the load body was provided to the investigator nor date of delivery confirmed from the fabricator’s record.

ii)      Complainant could not provide satisfactory proof to justify delay in getting the vehicle registered nor completed the process of registration of vehicle.

According to the complainants, the contents of said letter are not genuine, valid and legal because the opposite parties have no right to settle the claim on 75% against invoice value instead of IDV and they have no right to deduct 5% on invoice value. The insurance was done against IDV of RS.10,11,750/- and premium was paid accordingly and at the time of insurance, it was not disclosed by the opposite parties under the head built type as ‘Semi build’. The opposite parties have violated the provisions of Section 39 of the M.V. Act and as such, act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the end, the complainant prayed for holding the letter dated 16.04.2019 and 24.04.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and baseless as well as holding the settling of the claim for Rs.6,86,562/- being 75% of the assessed amount of Rs.9,16,750/- (Rs.9,65,000/- invoice value minus 5%) as illegal, baseless and arbitrary. The complainants also prayed for directing the opposite parties to settle and pay the insured declare value of Rs.10,11,750/- with interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- besides litigation  expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; the complaint being barred u/s.26 of the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct; lack of jurisdiction etc. According to the OPs, the complainant obtained the Goods Carrying Package Policy for his vehicle which was stolen. On receipt of the claim, Shri Jagmohan Singh, Investigator, Ludhiana was appointed as investigator to investigate the theft of Tata 709. The investigator submitted the report with the observations/findings, which are reproduced as under:-

• “The company insured Tata 709 No.PB-10-EZ(T)-1799 under policy No.242596/31/2018/TMC/31954, in the name of M/s Moudgil Trading Group for the period from 22.11.2017 to 21.11.2018.
• Insured vehicle was stolen from out-side Petrol Pump opposite GNE College, Ludhiana on intervening night of 31.03.2018/01.04.2018, within policy period, insured lodged FIR No.0076/2018 dated 07.04.2018 with PS Dugri, Ludhiana u/s 379 of IPC.
• The insured submitted final police untraced report. He was asked to submit it duly accepted by the court.
• Neither provisional nor regular R/C of Tata 709 was issued. Temp. registration Mark issued by dealer expired after one month i.e. on 21.12.2017. Although registration fee was deposited on line on 18.12.2017 before expiry of temp. registration Mark PB-10-EZ(T)-1799.
• The job of fabricating load body on chassis was entrusted to Pali Body Builders Doraha but neither their bill is provided no date of delivery confirmed from their record, so value of load body not considered and voluntary written consent taken from insured.
• Since Tata 709 is stolen when parked duly locked, so D/L is not insisted, set of keys are in possession of insured.
• No foul play on part of insured is noticed during investigation.

As per documents and information collected during investigation, the validity of temp. regd. mark for new vehicle had expired on 21.12.2017 but not examined by M.V. Inspector for passing till 01.04.2018 i.e. date of theft even after 4 months), no evidentiary supporting proof for completion for load body fabrication submitted. So there is some delay in passing of vehicle (although registration fee deposited before expiry) for its fitness, issuance of permanent registration number and other requisite documents as per provisions of MV Act.”

The opposite parties further stated that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question vide invoice bearing No.IDATLH1718001068 dated 22.11.2017 worth Rs.9,65,000/- and as such the IDV value had to be assessed 5% less than the invoice value which comes to Rs. 9,16,750/- instead of Rs. 10,11,750/-. The complainant had also given the voluntary consent dated 24.7.2018 that he agree to accept an amount of Rs.9.10,000/- as IDV of the insured vehicle covered under motor insurance policy No.242596/31/2018/TMC/31954. As per the insurance policy the excess clause is Rs.1000/-. There is delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR No.76/2018 dated 07.04.2018 with P.S. Dugri, Ludhiana and even there is a delay of 9 days in lodging the claim as online intimation was given on 09.04.2018 and written claim intimation was given on 20.07.2018. As such, the complainant has violated the condition No.1 of the insurance policy.  The opposite parties further stated that after receipt of report of investigator and after scrutinizing the documents, it was observed that there is violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act as the vehicle was not registered as per provisions of Motor Vehicle act and even the temporary registration has expired on 21.12.2017 prior to registration of vehicle with RTA, Ludhiana. Moreover, the vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate. The opposite parties further averred that after application of mind, its competent authority approved the claim of the complainant for Rs.6,86,562/- being 75% of the assessed amount as full and final settlement subject to submission of certain documents. But the complainant through his letter dated 24.04.2019 called upon the opposite parties to disclose the reasons of settlement of the claim as 75% which was duly replied by them vide their letter dated 24.04.2019. However, the complainant did not submit any documents as detailed on letter dated 16.04.2019 and as such, the amount of Rs.6,86,562/- was not paid to him as full and final settlement of his claim.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, complainant No.2 submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of invoice dated 22.11.2017, Ex. C2 is the copy of temporary registration certificate No.PB10-EZ-1799, Ex. C3 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C4 is the copy of Form-Receipt of Tax issued by Punjab Motor Vehicle Department, Ex. C5 is the copy of Form-Receipt of society fees issued by Punjab Motor Vehicle Department, Ex. C6 is the copy of FIR No.76 dated 07.04.2018, Ex. C7 is the copy of letter dated 16.04.2019 of insurance company, Ex. C8 is the copy of intimation of theft by complainant dated 24.04.2019, Ex. C9 is the copy of letter dated 24.04.2019 of insurance company and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Senior Divisional Manager, of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., DO-II, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Investigator along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. R2 is the copy of Commercial Vehicles Package Policy, Ex. R3 is the copy of letter dated 24.04.2019 of insurance company, Ex. R4 is the copy of letter dated 24.04.2019 of the complainant, Ex. R5 is the copy of letter dated 16.04.2019 of the insurance company, Ex. R6 is the copy of report of investigator dated 17.10.2018, Ex. R7 is the copy of addendum report dated 26.12.2018 of the investigator, Ex. R8, Ex. R9 is the copy of email,  Ex. R10 is the copy of affidavit of Rajan Moudgil, Ex. R11 is the statement of insured, Ex. R12 is the copy of untrace report, Ex. R13 is the copy of FIR No.76 dated 07.04.2018, Ex. R14, Ex. R15 is the copy of Google search information, Ex. R16 is the copy of certificate of Niravi Tracker, Ex. R17 is the copy of GTIN details of complainant firm, Ex. R18 and Ex. R19 are the copies of statements of witnesses, Ex. R20 is the copy of driving license of Rinku, Ex. R21 is the copy of tax invoice of Dada Motors Ltd., Ex. R22 is the copy of invoice of Pali Body Builders, Ex. R23 is the copy of Temporary registration certificate, Ex. R24 and Ex. R25 are the copies of receipts issued by Punjab Motor Vehicle Department, Ex. R26 is the copy of PAN card of Rajan Modgil, Ex. R27 is the copy of Aadhar card of Rajan Modgil, Ex. R28 is the copy of motor claim form, Ex. R29 is the copy of voluntary consent of the complainant, Ex. R30 is the copy of motor claim intimation, Ex. R31 is the copy of letter dated 29.05.2014 of the insurance company, Ex. R32 is the copy of request of complainant, Ex. R33 is the copy of email and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the complainant.

6.                Complainant No.2 Rajan Moudgil being proprietor of complainant No.1 firm M/s. Moudgil Trading Group, Dugri Road, Ludhiana purchased a new truck Tata 709 without load body for a sum of Rs.9,65,000/- vide invoice dated 22.11.2017 Ex. C1. The dealer issued temporary registration No.PB10-EZ-1799 on 21.11.2017 for a period of 22.11.2017 to 21.12.2017. The complainant obtained Goods Carrying Package Insurance Policy for the said vehicle having validity 22.11.2017 to 21.11.2018 for IDV value of Rs.10,11,750/-. The complainant deposited the Road Tax of Rs.4750/- (Ex. C4)  for a period of 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 and also paid a sum of Rs.4200/- (Ex. C5) towards registration charges and initiated process for registration of vehicle.

7.                In the intervening night of 31.03.2018 and 01.04.2018, the said vehicle was stolen in front of petrol pump  near the office of brother of complainant No.2 in the area of Gill Road, Ludhiana and accordingly, an FIR No.76 dated 07.04.2018 (Ex. C6 = Ex. R13) was registered at Police Station Dugri, Ludhiana. The claim was duly lodged and Mr. Jagmohan Singh was deputed as investigator to investigate the theft of the said vehicle who submitted his report dated 17.10.2018 Ex. R6. The investigator was of the opinion that there was no foul play on the part of the insured and has also referred to delay in passing of the vehicle for its fitness, issuance of permanent registration number of the vehicle etc. During the course of investigation, the complainant was pursuaded to give consent on 24.07.2018 whereby he agreed to accept the amount of Rs.9,10,000/- as IDV value of the insured vehicle covered under the insurance policy.

8.                Despite the tentative settlement, the opposite parties scrutinized and reviewed the claim of the complainant and took the following factors into consideration:

          Warranty of 48 hours

The warranty of 48 hrs. regarding intimation of theft claim, hereby stands withdrawn in view of already incorporated general condition for immediate reporting of all claims in the policy.

Absence of Permit/violation and/or expiry of Permit.

In case of permit violation all motor own damage claims may be considered on non-standard basis for an amount not exceeding 75% of the admissible claim. The authority competent to settle such claims will be as per the limit provided in the financial standing order for settlement of non-standard claim.

Non-availability of registration certificate

In all motor OD claims where RC is not available on the date of claim:

• Where the insured is able to register the vehicle and bring RC later on i.e. he is able to satisfy RTO’s requirement, we may settle the claim on non-standard basis for an amount not exceeding 75% of the admissible claim.
• Where the insured is not able to register the vehicle as per requirements of RTO we may repudiate the claim.”

Thereafter, approved the claim of the complainant for Rs.6,86,562/- being 75% of the assessed amount subject to furnishing of certain documents and the complainant was accordingly informed on 16.04.2019 vide letter Ex. C7. The complainant vide letter dated 24.04.2018 Ex. C8 disputed the correctness of settled claim and termed the action of the opposite parties as illegal. The complainant further emphasized that the opposite parties have no right to settle the claim less than invoice value of Rs.9,65,000/- of the vehicle.

9.                Perusal of revised claim settlement letter dated 29.05.2014 reveals that the main basis of settling the claim on non-standard basis is non-availability of registration certificate which amounts to violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is evident from the record that immediately after the purchase, the complainant was issued a temporary registration No.PB10-EZ-1799 by the dealer vide certificate Ex. C2 which was having a validity from 22.11.2017 to 21.12.2017. This period affords a chance to the holder of temporary registration certificate to apply for a permanent certificate of registration. In order to get permanent registration certificate, the complainant paid road tax amounting to Rs.2750/- and Rs.4200/- as other registration charges to the competent authority vide receipt Ex. C4 and Ex. C5. So the compliance of the legal provisions under Motor Vehicle Act on the part of the complainant was completed as and when applied for issuance of permanent registration certificate within stipulated period. Now it was for the competent authorities to issue the said registration certificate within time. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the complainant for applying the same. The other objections with regard to delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR with Police Station Dugri, Ludhiana  and delay of 9 days for giving intimation to the opposite parties pales into insignificance when the occurrence of theft was found to be genuine and the parties hereto through mediation of duly appointed investigator reached at the settlement. Further the vehicle was parked and was not being plied on a public road. As such, the rigor of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not attracted and it cannot said that there was fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the opposite parties were not justified in settling the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis. In the present case, the invoice value of the vehicle is Rs.9,65,000/- and by deducting 5% of the gross value, it comes out to Rs.9,16,750/-. For settling the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties demanded certain documents from the complainant vide letter dated  16.04.2019 Ex. R5, which are reproduced as under:-

• Letter of subrogation, indemnity and undertaking on Rs.100/- stamp paper duly attested by Notary Public,
• Since RC has not been issued, please send transfer papers (form 29/30) with cancellation of hypothecation from financer.
• Discharge voucher duly signed and completed in all respect by affixing Rs.1/- revenue stamp.
•  ECS from duly filled in and signed along with one cancelled cheque with compete account number and IFSC code of bank branch.
• Acknowledged copy of regd. letter written to the police authorities for correction in the engine no.
• Letter from the financer for not repossession of the vehicle by them.
• Please hand over the original keys with verification report from the dealer.
• Original invoice
• Affidavit from the dealer duly attested that duplicate invoice will not be generated.
• Acknowledged copy of regd. letter written to police authorities requesting them to handover the above stolen vehicle to our insurance company, if recovered by them.

However, the complainant did not submit the said documents with the opposite parties. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to furnish the documents demanded vide letter dated 16.04.2019 Ex. R5 with the opposite parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.9,16,750/- to the complainant as per invoice value within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till its actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/-  to the complainant within the stipulated period.

10.            As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to furnish the documents demanded vide letter dated 16.04.2019 Ex. R5 with the opposite parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.9,16,750/- to the complainant as per invoice value within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till its actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within the stipulated period. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                            Member                                          President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

M/s. Moudgil Trading Group Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.        CC/19/275

Present:       Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for OP1 to OP3.

                   Complaint against OP4 not admitted vide order dated 14.06.2019.

         

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to furnish the documents demanded vide letter dated 16.04.2019 Ex. R5 with the opposite parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.9,16,750/- to the complainant as per invoice value within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till its actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within the stipulated period. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                            Member                                          President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.