Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/10/2021

Ram Niwas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Abhimanyu Kalkal

20 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                                     

                                                                                    Complaint No.:10 of 2021.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 19.01.2021.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:    20.08.2024

Ram Niwas aged 62 years son of Chandgi Ram, resident of Pahari, Tehsil Loharu, District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                                                                                             

                                                Versus

1. Oriental  Insurance Company Limited, branch office Charkhi Dadri, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and Distt Charkhi Dadri through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Head office: A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through Manager.

 

                                                                  …...Opposite Parties. 

                              COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

 

 

Before: -        Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                        Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:          Sh. Abhimanyu Kalkal, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Vinod Kumar Chahar, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER:-

 

                        The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is registered owner of vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. HR-18C/8755, which was got insured with the OPs vide policy No.261204/31/2018/1862 covering period from 26.08.2017 to 25.08.2018. The above said tractor was given to Sandeep Phogat son of Ranjit Phogat for irrigation purpose. It is alleged that on dated 05.06.2018 from village Samaspur the Tractor was stolen.  It is alleged that the complainant informed the concerned police station and an FIR No. 348 dated 06.06.2018 under Section 379-IPC was got registered at police station Sadar Dadri.  The complainant alleged that the police could not trace out the said vehicle and in the end un-trace report was filed by the police in the court.  The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the Opposite Parties for making payment of insured amount but to no avail. The complainant has also served upon a notice  dated 24.07.2020 through his counsel Sh. Abhimanyu Kalkal, on which the OP no.1 sent a false and baseless reply through his counsel  and denied the claim. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                     On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of policy of insurance as he failed to submit the keys of the vehicle tractor No. HR 18C-8755 and no loss or theft report of key was produced to company or investigator which is violation  of terms and conditions  of  policy and no claim can be settled in absence of original keys. It is alleged that complainant failed to clarify that the tractor was being used by Sandeep Phogat and alleged theft had taken place from Farm house situated at village Samuspur and the tractor was got insured on the cheque issued by Sandeep Phogat which shows that complainant Ram Niwas was having no insurable interest at the time of alleged theft and he had already sold the tractor which he claims in the FIR also as such no claim was found payable to the complainant in these circumstances.  It is further alleged that FIR was got lodged   on 06.06.2018 after a delay of one day and the complainant failed to give information to the OPs and the complainant also breached the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the duty of insured to safeguard the vehicle as per policy contract  and the complainant failed to safeguard the vehicle by parking the same at a lonely place  which was not safe and as such complainant himself failed to abide by the contract of policy.  As per report of Govt. approved Surveyor & loss Assessor the claim was not found payable and as such same was repudiated. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                    In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5.

4.                    In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex.R-15 and  affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.RW2/B,Ex.RW2/C, Ex.RW2/D and Ex.RW2/E.

5.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

                        During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the tractor in question was stolen on 05.06.2018 and FIR no. 348 dated 06.06.2018 was lodged with the concerned police station by the Sandeep Phogat.  The complainant also intimated the opposite parties and submitted the claim to the opposite parties. 

7.                     Learned counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of reply.  He submitted that there is delay of one day in the intimation to the Insurance Company regarding the theft of the tractor by the complainant. Also  OP averred that original keys were not handed over and insured vehicle-tractor was sold to  Shri Sandeep  under whose possession  tractor was at the time of theft and FIR was also lodged by him.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties.  The repudiation letter dated 19.11.2018 is Ex. R-13. During the course of argument, it was not disputed that the theft of the insured vehicle had taken place during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The same could not be traced out by the police and the police has filed untraced report. In our view, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the OPs has no merit, because a person who has lost his vehicle which was being used by him may not go immediately to Insurance Company to claim the compensation.  At the first instance he himself makes efforts to search the vehicle and filing of claim with the Insurance Company is the last option.

8.                     In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record Investigation Report  dated 10.01.2018 Ex.RW2/B sent by Royal Associates, Investigating and Detective Agency to Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company. The conclusion of the report is as under:-

            “On the basis of above said findings and documentary evidence we are of the opinion that date, time and place of theft seems to be genuine. Tractor was stolen on 05.06.2018 night from Farm House of owner at village Samaspur. Theft was noticed on next day morning i.e. on 06.06.2018. Matter was reported to police station and FIR was lodged at police station Sadar Dadri on 06.06.2018. There is no delay in giving information to police about theft of IV Tractor was in good condition at the time of theft. So  theft seems to be genuine. But the insured and registered owner Ram Niwas seems to be have no interest in tractor as tractor was used and looked after by Sandeep Phogat for the last one year. Police investigation is going on and untraced report is still awaited. Insurer may deal with the claim as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, keeping in view the above said findings.” Subsequently, “untraced report” was presented by police and the same was accepted by Hon’ble CJM-cum-CJ (Sr. Divn) Charkhi Dadri on 29.01.2020. The same is on record with this Commission.

              Admittedly, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The Tractor in question has been stolen during the period of insurance cover as is proved from the FIR.  The insurance of the tractor was in the name of complainant. The complainant has valid insurable interest in the vehicle. The OP issued letter dated 19.11.2018, 07.02.02019 and 26.03.2019 asking for various documents. No where OP asked for keys of tractor, all relevant documents such as insurance policy, FIR, RC, Untraced Report etc. are already on file. The FIR was lodged quickly i.e. the day of theft or  next day of theft. The OP has not submitted any evidence in support of their averment that the tractor was sold and the complainant has no insurable interest. In view of these facts and evidence placed on record, the claim of the complainant cannot be denied.

9.                     Keeping in view the facts of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant as under:-

1.  Rs.4,00,000/- ( Rs. Four Lakh only) being IDV of the tractor to the complainant, subject to submission of subrogation letter, no dues certificate from the financer/loan account statement of insured vehicle, if any, alongwith Form 26, 27, 29 and 30(A) to the insurance company with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 19.01.2021 till its realization.
2. Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards pain, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.

The opposite party shall deposit the said amount with this Commission within 45 days from today, failing which insurer shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization.