BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRTICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: MEWAT AT NUH.
Consumer complaint No.02
Date of Institution: 25.04.2014
Date of Order: 26.02.2016
Sameed Khan son of Munshi Khan, resident of Villager Hassanpur, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
….Complainant.
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office 288/7, Munjal Tower, Railway Road, Gurgaon through its Divisional Manager.
…. Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE Mr.Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President.
Mrs.Urmil Beniwal, Member.
Present: Mr.Arshad Hussain, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr.V.K.Bhardwaj, Adv. for the opposite party.
ORDER R.S. DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
The facts agitated in complaint in brief are as under:-
1. That the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-02-G-9754 which was duly insured with the opposite party vide policy No.152403/31/2009/2139 for the period from 25.8.2008 to 24.8.2009. On 12.5.2009, when the complainant alongwith his conductor Imran son of Munshi resident of Hassanpur and two labourers namely Sahabuddin son of Noordeen and Umardeen son of Sube Khan residents of Alawada were coming back after unloading the vehicle from Badkali to Hassanpur, some unknown persons came there and looted from the complainant cash amount of Rs.54000/-, one mobile, Titan watch and two mobiles from Imran and Umardeen. They also looted the vehicle of the complainant. Information in this regard was given to the Police Station and to this effect an FIR was lodged on 13.5.2009 with Police Station, Ferozepur Zhirka and the complainant also intimated the opposite party-Insurance Company as well as its agent. Accordingly, he took steps for getting the insured amount and all the formalities have been completed by him but the opposite party has failed to pay the insured amount to the complainant and the claim was repudiated wrongly and illegally. The complainant further stated that he was also burdened with interest by the financer from whom he got the vehicle financed. So the opposite party may please be directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as insured amount alongwith interest @ 18% interest p.a. from 2.9.2009. The complainant had suffered mental & physical pain due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party and as such the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant also prayed to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as expenses for filing the complaint and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party who put in appearance through learned counsel and filed reply of the complaint in question. The learned counsel at the very outset raised preliminary objections in his reply that the complaint is not maintainable on facts under law applicable thereto. Further the complainant has not come with clean hands before the Court. The complainant according to the opposite party has also concealed the material facts and further there is plea of violation of policy terms and conditions. The opposite party further in his preliminary objection took the plea that the complainant has failed to provide original documents, keys of the vehicle, providing letter of subrogation and an undertaking, final report of the Judicial court under section 173 Cr.P.C.etc. Further the complaint is barred by time and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured was duty bound to inform the company about any mishap with the insured vehicle but in the instant case it was given after 24 hours. In addition to it, there is also preliminary objections regarding liability of interest on the company for such a long period of about 7 years as it was the complainant who choose wrong Forum and had unnecessarily dragged the company at District level, State level as well as National level.
3. In parawise reply, the opposite party denied the facts of the complaint rather stated that by filing complaint before a Forum which had no territorial jurisdiction, the complainant dragged the opposite party unnecessarily resulting into huge expenses in the shape of fees to counsel and other expenses for which the complainant is liable to reimburse. Further denied that the complainant is entitled to any relief under the policy or with interest or any amount for alleged mental agony or any counsel fee of Rs.11000/- or any other relief. In the end, it is prayed that present complaint may please be dismissed with special costs as the complainant failed to provide necessary documents despite demand and filed complaint before a wrong Forum.
4. To strengthen his claim, the complainant has adduced his evidence and in evidence he placed on record his affidavit which is Ex.CW1/A in which he has re-asserted the allegations levelled in his complaint. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of 173 Cr.PC report, Ex. A-2 is the copy of driving licence, Ex.A-3 is the copy of letters issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Ex.A-4 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex.A-5 is the copy of Vehicle Accident Intimation, Ex.A-6 is the copy of FIR, Ex.A-7 is the copy of Registration Certificate, Ex.A-8 is the copy of Tax penalty receipt, Ex.A-9 is the copy of driving licence fee, Ex.A-9 is the copy of permit in r/o Goods Carriers, Ex.A-10 is the copy of order of DCDRF, Alwar (Raj.), Ex.A-11 is the copy order of Hon,ble National Commission, New Delhi. Copy of schedule of premium is also attached.
5. To strengthen his version the opposite party has placed on record the affidavit of Shri S.S.Yadav, Divisional Manager of the opposite party in which he has re-asserted the pleas already taken in detailed reply filed by the opposite party.
6. After adducing evidence both the parties put forth their written arguments and also raised oral arguments in support of their respective contentions.
7. The claim is contested by the opposite party on the ground that complainant has violated the condition of the policy by giving late intimation by (24 hours late).
8. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through both oral as well as documentary evidence on the file thoroughly. Initially the complainant had filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar where the complaint of the complainant allowed but the opposite party had filed appeal against that order before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (Rajasthan) where his appeal was accepted. Then the complainant went in appeal against the order of SCDRC,Jaipur Rajasthan before the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi where the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 27.02.2014 returned the complaint of the complainant with the following order:-
Nothing will bar the petitioner to file the complaint before the
District Forum where the cause of action has arisen. He can file
it before the concerned District Forum and the time spent before
the Consumer Fora can be excluded in view of law laid down in
Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)
3 SCC 583.
9. Hence, the complaint has been filed by the complainant before this Forum and in view of the above order of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, the objections raised by the Ld.counsel for the opposite party in his reply as well as in written arguments regarding limitation is not tenable. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the opposite party on the date of theft. Regarding another objection raised by the Ld.counsel for the opposite party for delay in intimation by 24 hours to the Insurance Company is also not acceptable since the complainant, after the incident of theft immediately informed the concerned Police Station, Ferozepur Zhirka and an FIR No.105 dated 13.05.2009 of theft u/s 395/212/120-B IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act of vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-02-G-9754 has been lodged. In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is not legal and the complainant is entitled to the insured amount of the vehicle as mentioned in the insurance policy. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the insured declared value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- as per insurance policy to the complainant after deducting Rs.1500/- on account of compulsory excess clause with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint before this Forum till payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after doing needful. This order of the Forum is running into 5 pages in total and each and every page of this order has been signed.
Announced in open Court.
26.02.2016
(Urmil Beniwal) (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
(Member) President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Mewat at Nuh
