Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd V/S Harbans Singh - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/164

Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.S.Heer Adv

03 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No: 164 dated 20.04.2022. Date of decision: 03.05.2024.

Harbans Singh
Davinder Singh, Both residents of House No.3329, Sector-39A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana-141010, Mobile No.9888518862, 9855093399,

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (Issue Office Name Sona Complex, Near Fire Brigade, Miller Ganj, G.T. Road, Ludhiana-through its Branch Manager, Phone No.0161-5050107, Fax No.0161-5050106.

Corporate Identity No.U16066010DL1947GO1007158.

…..Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants : Sh. S.S. Heer, Advocate.

For OP : Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainants were owners of TATA Indica car bearing No.PB-10-BU-3139 having model 2006. The said car was insured with the OP as per policy No.233905/31/2019/2376 for the year 2019 covering loss of the vehicle by theft. The complainants stated that unfortunately, their vehicle was stolen on 07.10.2018 at Pharma Apartment, C-4/30, I.P. Extension, Delhi by some miscreants who took away the vehicle at the time the vehicle was driven by Davinder Singh who gave written information to Crime Branch, Delhi Police Station, E-Police Station, Madhu Vihar East, Delhi, on the basis of which an FIR No.035576 dated 07.10.2018 U/s.379 IPC was registered. Even intimation of theft was given to the OP vide claim No.230012/31/2019/034822. The OP deputed their surveyor for assessment of loss and the competent authority of the OP approved the theft claim for Rs.89,000/- The complainants further stated that they received a registered letter from the Motor Claims Department dated 04.04.2019 informing the complainants that the competent authority has approved the theft claim of Rs.89,000/-, which will be released after completion/submissions of the conditions/documents reproduced as under:-

i) Recent passport size photographs of the insured.

ii) Self attested copy of passport/PAN card/Driving license, Voter ID card etc. of the insured.

iii) Proof of resident/Self attested copy of Ration Card/copy of the Aadhar Card/Telephone bill/Electricity bill in original of the insured.

iv) ECS Mandate Form

v) RC book of the vehicle in original with cancellation of HPA along with registration transfer documents (Form 29/Form 30) duly filled in and signed.

vi) Letter of Subrogation, indemnity and under taking on Rs.100/- stamp paper each duly attested by Notary Public.

vii) NOC from Financial institution/bank.

viii) Acknowledged copy of reg. letter written to RTO so that further Road Tax liability and Challan for Traffic violation by the thieves user of stolen vehicle are avoided.

ix) Acknowledge copy of registered letter written to Police authorities requesting them to handover the above stolen vehicle to our Insurance company, if recovered by them.”

According to the complainants, they replied the said letter vide letter dated 18.09.2021 and sent required documents mentioned at serial No.1 to 9. They further received letter dated 30.09.2021 from the OP with demand of original RC of the stolen vehicle and they replied the said letter on 13.10.2021 informing the OP that the original RC was in the vehicle at the time of theft. The complainants requested the OP to submit affidavit in case of need. The complainants further stated that they had already completed the necessary formalities for settlement of the claim which the OP failed to settle till date in spite of repeated visits. The act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainants suffered mental pain and agony and the OP is liable to compensate the complainants for the same. In the end, the complainants have prayed for issuing direction to the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.89,000/- along with interest as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement and assailed by complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; lack of jurisdiction; the complainants being stopped by their act and conduct; concealment of material facts etc. The OP stated that immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. The complainants got insured their car No.PB-10-BU-3139 with them vide policy No.233905/31/2019/2376 w.e.f. 10.06.2018 to 09.06.2019 having IDV value of Rs.90,000/- only. Sh. Jainti Prasad Jain, Investigator, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (UP) was appointed as investigator who made through investigation, recorded the statement, took the documents and thereafter prepared his investigation report dated 11.02.2019 and submitted the same with the OP. The OP further stated that after receipt of the report of investigator and after scrutinizing the documents of the claim file and after applying their mind by the officials of the OP, the claim of the complainants was approved by the competent authority in respect of theft of car for Rs.89,000/- (IDV value Rs.90,000/- minus Rs.1000/- excess clause) and conveyed the said decision to the complainants vide letter dated 04.04.2019 followed by reminder dated 20.05.2020 stating that the approved claim amount will be released after completion/submission of the conditions/documents, which were material documents requiring for processing of the claim amount. The OP further stated that the complainants received the said letters and send the documents vide their letter dated 18.09.2021 (after the gap of more than 2 years 6 months 12 days) received on 30.09.2021:-

“Recent passport size photographs of the insured.
Self attested copy of Driving license, Voter ID card of the insured.
Proof of resident- self attested copy of Aadhar Card and electricity bill.
ECS Mandate Form
Photostat copy of the R.C book of the vehicle as the original was lying in the vehicle which was stolen by some miscreants.
Letter of Subrogation, indemnity and under taking on Rs.100/- stamp paper each duly attested by Notary Public.
NOC from Financial institution/bank.
Acknowledge copy of regd. letter written to RTO so that further Road Tax liability and Challan for Traffic violation by the thieves user of stolen vehicle are avoided.
Acknowledge copy of registered letter written to Police authorities requesting them to handover the above stolen vehicle to our Insurance company, if recovered by them.”

The OP further stated that after receipt of letter dated 18.09.2021 of the complainants on 30.09.2021 and after scrutinizing the same, they vide letter dated 30.09.2021 informed the complainant that the requirement under Sr. No.5 (wrongly typed as Sr. No.4) of letter dated 04.04.2019 is still pending i.e. RC book of vehicle in original with cancellation of HPA along with registration transfer documents Form 29 and 30 duly filled in and signed. It was further mentioned in the said letter that “as already discussed with you during your visit to our office, it is again requested to contract RC issuing office and provides the same.” The complainants replied the letter (dated 13.10.2021 which was received by the OP on 22.10.2021) showing his inability to provide the original RC along with cancellation of HP rather offered to execute the affidavit in this regard. The OP further averred that after receipt of reply dated 13.10.2021 on 22.10.2021, they called upon the complainant vide letter dated 26.10.2021 informing that if the original registration certificate is stolen with the vehicle, then the complainant has to obtain the duplicate RC from the concerned DTO office after deletion of hypothecation if any but the complainant has failed to send the duplication registration certificate along with endorsement of cancellation of hypothecation to the OP till date due to which the approved amount of Rs.89,000/- with regard to theft of car in full and final settlement could not be released to the complainants. The OP claimed that it is still ready to pay the said approved amount of Rs.89,000/- to the complainants in full and final settlement of the claim provided original/duplicate registration certificate with the endorsement of cancellation of RC with them.

On merits, The OP reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In evidence, the complainants tendered affidavit of Sh. Davinder Singh as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Harbans Singh, Ex. C2 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Davinder Pal Singh, Ex. C3 is the copy of Form of certificate of registration, Ex. C4 is the copy of FIR No.035576 dated 07.10.2018, Ex. C5 is the copy of letter dated 04.04.2019, Ex. C6 is the copy of reply dated 18.09.2021, Ex. C7 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C8 is the copy of reply dated 13.10.2021, ex. C9 is the copy of postal receipt 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 statements along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6. The complainants, Harbans Singh and Davinder Singh being owners of TATA India Car bearing registration No.PB-10-BU-3139 obtained a Private Car Package Policy vide policy Ex. R1 w.e.f. 10.06.2018 to midnight of 09.06.2019. The IDV value of the vehicle was to the tune of Rs.90,000/- only. On 07.10.2018, the vehicle in question was stolen from Pharma Apartment, Delhi and accordingly an FIR No.035576 dated 07.10.2018, U/s. 379 IPC Ex. C4 = Ex. R32 was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, e-Police Station (Madhu Vihar East District) The claim was duly lodged and Sh. Jainti Prasad Jain was deputed as investigator to investigate the theft of the said vehicle who submitted his report dated 11.02.2019 Ex. R24, vide which the investigator made the findings and conclusion, which is reproduced as under:-

“FINDINGS

The car in question was insured for the period of one year from 10/06/2018 to 09.06.2019 and loss falls within the policy period.

The insured has submitted all relevant documents along with one original key. Copies of ID proof, PAN Card, Untraced report received from the court and other documents which are being attached herewith.

Despite my through investigation I could not come across any fact/information, which could led to suspicion of theft.

There is no delay on the part of the Insured to inform the policy and Insurance Company. The Insured lodged the for theft of his car on 07/10/2018 and Insurance Company on 10/10/2018.”

CONCLUSION

The Car in question was registered in the name of Mr. Harbans Singh and Devender Singh (it should be in the name of Devinder Pal Singh S/o. Sh. Harbans Singh) who is also the insurance policy holder. The Company may proceed to finalize the claim after compliance of their usual formalities and as per terms and conditions of the policy.”

The officials of the OP after considering the report of investigator and after scrutinizing the documents, approved the claim of Rs.89,000/- out of IDV value of Rs.90,000/- subject to furnishing of certain documents and the complainant was accordingly informed on 04.04.2019 vide letter Ex. R17 and letter dated 20.05.2020 Ex. R16 and demanded as many as 9 documents as per said letters, already mentioned above in the facts of the case. The complainant replied the letter dated 04.04.2019 vide reply dated 18.09.2021 Ex. C6 = Ex. R6 and sent the documents with the OP. Further the OP issued letter dated 26.10.2021 Ex. R3 to the complainants stating that “in theft cases, if original RC stolen with the vehicle, insured has to obtain duplicate RC from the concerned DTO office after deletion of hypothecation, if any.” However, the complainants did not submit the document demanded vide letter Ex. R3.

7. From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the only point of issue arises that whether the opposite parties were justified in not disbursing the approved claim of Rs.89,000/- to the complainants due to non-submission of documents to the OP demanded through letter Ex. R3?

8. It is established on record that the car in question was stolen, which was insured with the OP and an FIR was immediately lodged in this regard. Intimation was given to the OP in time. Further the OP after receipt of claim, appointed the investigator who submitted his report and after scrutinizing the investigation report and documents on record, the OP approved claim of Rs.89,000/-. However, due to non-submission of document as per letter Ex. R3, the OP did not release the said amount. Even the OP in written statement stated that the Company is ready to pay the full and final settlement of the claim subject to providing original/duplicate registration certificate with endorsement of cancellation of RC with them. In the given set of circumstances, it would be just and proper if the complainants are directed to submit the document mentioned in letter Ex. R3 with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the document from the complainants, the opposite party shall reimburse the claim of Rs.89,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of document from the complainants.

9. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainants to submit the document mentioned in letter Ex. R3 with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the document from the complainants, the opposite party shall reimburse the claim of Rs.89,000/- to the complainants within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of document from the complainants. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

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

(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra) Member President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.05.2024.

Gobind Ram.

Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/164

Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.S.Heer Adv

03 May 2024

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319