Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/181

Anil Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajneesh Garg

18 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :             181 of 2019

Date of Institution:  26.07.2019

Date of Decision :   18.02.2020

 

Anil Kumar Jain son of Om Parkash Jain, resident of Ganesh Cotton Factory, Factory Raod, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                                                                    ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. And Head Office at A-25/27, Asaf Ali road. New Delhi-110002 through its Manager/Authorized Officer.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. having its office branch at Gansi Ram Street, Near Old Grain Market, Kotkapura, through its Manager/Authorized Officer.

                                                                                      .......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Deep Chand Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          

cc no. 181 of 2019

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.27,000/- on account of loss of insured vehicle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant owned a Motor Cycle Hero Honda (Splender) bearing registration no.PB-045/3158 and his vehicle was fully insured with OPs vide policy cover note no.233702/31/2018/1768 valid for the period from 14.10.2017 to 31.10.2018 and OPs charged Rs.1,189/-for insurance of his vehicle. It is submitted that during the subsistence of insurance period, insured vehicle of complainant was stolen by someone on 9.10.2018 at about 9.00 pm, son of complainant took the vehicle to visit Baba Sham Mandir, Surga Puri, Kotkapura and he parked the same outside the mandir premises and duly locked the same, but after ten minutes, when he came back, his vehicle was not there. On intimation by his son, complainant approached the spot alongwith his other family members and they all tried to locate the vehicle, but could not find the vehicle. Information regarding theft of his vehicle was given to Police Authorities as well as OPs. Police also tried to find out his vehicle, but could not find. FIR No.174 dated 30.10.2018 to this effect was got recorded in Police Station City, Kotkapura. Surveyor appointed by Ops also got recorded the statements

cc no. 181 of 2019

of complainant and other people of surrounding area and assured to settle the genuine claim of complainant within short period, but did not do anything needful. Complainant paid many visits to the office of OPs and also made several requests to them to process his claim but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him for which he has prayed for directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.27,000/- on account of loss of insured vehicle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.30,000/-as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 31.07.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                       On receipt of the notice, OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has no right to file the present complaint and he has not completed all the formalities required for payment of compensation and thus, complaint is premature.  It is asserted that vide letters dt 29.11.2018, 2.01.2019,  11.03.2019 and 23.05.2019, they asked complainant to submit Untraced Report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. of said motor cycle duly accepted by the court, Ignition Key of vehicle and NCRB Report for processing the claim of complainant, but

cc no. 181 of 2019

instead of furnishing the said mandatory documents, complainant filed the present complaint. Answering Ops has never repudiated the claim of complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On merits, ld counsel for OPs has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken by him in preliminary objections and further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                         Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case.  Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Vikas Kataria Regional Manager Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the record placed on file.

8                                              Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that insured vehicle of complainant was stolen by someone on

cc no. 181 of 2019

09.10.2018 at about 9.00 pm. Son of complainant took the vehicle to visit Baba Sham Mandir, Surga Puri, Kotkapura and after locking the vehicle, he parked the same outside the mandir premises, but after ten minutes, when he came back, he did not find his vehicle there. He informed complainant and then, complainant alongwith his other family members tried to locate the vehicle, but could not find the vehicle. Information regarding theft of his vehicle was given to Police Authorities as well as OPs. FIR No.174 dated 30.10.2018 to this effect was got recorded in Police Station City, Kotkapura. Surveyor appointed by Ops recorded the statements of complainant and other people of surrounding area and assured to clear claim of complainant within short period, but despite several visits and repeated requests, they have not paid a single penny on account of his genuine insurance claim, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                            To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for Ops asserted before the Forum that complainant himself has not submitted the requisite documents and has not completed all the formalities mandatory for payment of insurance claim and thus, complaint is premature.  It is asserted that vide letters dt 29.11.2018, 2.01.2019,  11.03.2019 and 23.05.2019, they asked complainant to submit Untraced Report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. of said motor cycle duly accepted by the court, Ignition Key of vehicle and NCRB Report for processing the claim of complainant, but instead of furnishing the said mandatory

cc no. 181 of 2019

documents, complainant filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations levelled by complainant have also been denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

10                                       From the careful perusal of record and going through the evidence and documents placed on file, it is observed that case of the complainant is that his insured vehicle was stolen by someone during the validity of insurance period. He duly intimated Ops in respect of theft of his motorcycle and also got recorded FIR to this effect and after that, complainant submitted all the documents as per instructions of Ops to them to obtain insurance claim for the loss caused to him on account of theft of his vehicle, but Ops did not make payment of insurance claim on false allegations of incomplete formalities. In reply, Ops stressed mainly on the point that despite issuance of letters dt 29.11.2018, 2.01.2019, 11.03.2019 and 23.05.2019, seeking complainant to submit Untraced Report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. of said motor cycle alongwith Ignition Key and NCRB Report which are mandatory for processing the claim of complainant, the complainant did not submit the relevant documents.  He himself is negligent for not submitting requisite documents and there is no repudiation or any fault on the part of Ops. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                       From the above discussion, it is observed that there is no dispute between complainant and Opposite parties regarding

cc no. 181 of 2019

insurance of vehicle in question.  There is also no denial to the fact that theft of vehicle occurred during the subsistence of present insurance policy and it is also not disputed that complainant did not intimate them regarding theft of his vehicle, rather Opposite Parties themselves admitted before the Forum that due intimation regarding theft of vehicle was given by complainant to them. It is crystal clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops for insisting on those formalities, which are already completed by complainant as complainant has already furnished all the documents sought by them for processing the claim.

12                                             Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant gave due intimation regarding theft of his vehicle to Ops immediately and completed all the formalities and also submitted all the required documents to them within time and no document or formality is remaining. The Ops are delaying the payment of claim genuine insurance claim of complainant on account of theft of his motorcycle on false grounds. As per guidelines of IRDA, the Insurance Companies have to decide the every claim within a period of three months from the date of its intimation and they cannot take more than six months even in special circumstances. Theft of motorcycle of complainant occurred on 9.10.2018, but Ops have not settled the claim of complainant even after passing of about more than one year and complainant is also entitled for interest and compensation alongwith insurance value of the vehicle from the date of intimation till the date of final realization. Ld Counsel for

cc no. 181 of 2019

complainant has placed on record copy of citation in cc no.86 of 2015, titled as Phoenix Comtrade Pvt Ltd Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14-Insurance Claim-Interest-Delay in payment of insurance claim-Held-Since the insurer has utilized the aforesaid amount, the complainant is also entitled to an appropriate interest on that amount-As per the guidelines issued by IRDA, the maximum period of six months from the date of the lodgement of complaint is available to the insurer for payment of the claim. He has further placed reliance on citation in First Appeal No.215 of 2015 with First Appeal No. 230 of 2015 dated 30.09.2015 in case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Jaswant Rai Verma with Jaswant Rai Verma Vs United India Insurance Company Limited, wherein Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T, Chandigarh observed that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2 (1) (g) Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002-Insurance Claim-theft of vehicle-Investigator appointed by Insurance Company – Untraced report not filed by Police – State Commission held that as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002, in special circumstances of the case, the Surveyor could take six months for submission of his report, from the date of his appointment – Even on receipt of untraced report on 11.12.2014 opposite party did not decide the claim – this amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade

cc no. 181 of 2019

practice by OP – The District Forum, erred in awarding interest @ 12% per anum on the IDV of the vehicle from the date of lodging the claim – It should have awarded after six months from the date of lodging the claim by the complainant – thus impugned order needs modification.

13                                         From the above discussion and keeping in view the case law produced by complainant, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.27,000/-as Insured’s Declared Value (IDV) of vehicle on account of insurance claim of complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per anum from 26.07.2019 i.e the date of filing the present complaint till he date of this order within 30 days from the transfer of vehicle and execution of other documents required for payment of claim, by complainant in favour of OPs, failing which complainant shall be further entitled for interest at the rate of 7% per anum from the date of this order till final realization. Opposite Parties are further directed to give Rs.5,000/-as consolidated compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Complainant shall transfer the certificate of registration in the name of Opposite Parties and shall also execute other required papers. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing  which    complainant  shall  be  entitled  to  proceed  under  Section  25  and  27   of the Consumer

cc no. 181 of 2019

Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 18.02.2020                 

(Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                             Member                            President