BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:275 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 02.05.2013.
Date of Decision:02.05.2016
- Meena aged about 34 years widow of Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Manohar Lal, resident of village Sawar, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- Vivek aged about 9 years minor son and
- Himani aged about 8 ½ years minor daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar son of Manohar Lal, resident of Sawar, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainants.
Versus
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 135-136, IInd Floor Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, IInd Floor, SCO No. 401-402, HDFC Bank Building, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager. ...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the vehicle in question was stolen in the night of 03.10.2010 during the insurance coverage period. An FIR No. 205 dated 04.10.2010 was registered with the concerned police station. The final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was accepted by the Court vide order dated 30.11.2011. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the Ops, the Ops have failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. The complainants further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, they had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, they had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the vehicle was not in the possession of insured and it was transferred to some other person therefore, the insured was having no insurable interest at alleged time of alleged theft of vehicle. It is submitted that he failed to park the vehicle at proper and guarded place and further failed to take the proper and necessary care of the vehicle while leaving the key in the vehicle. It is submitted that complainant have failed to supply the required information as well as documents demanded by the company. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C-16 along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record Annexure R1 to Annexure R-32.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle in question was stolen in the night of 03.10.2010 during the insurance coverage period. An FIR No. 205 dated 04.10.2010 Annexure C-2 was registered with the concerned police station. The final report Annexure C-4 under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was accepted by the Court vide order dated 30.11.2011 Annexure C-5. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the Ops and the Ops have failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. He further submitted that the husband of the complainant and as well as complainant have died, living behind minor son and daughter and these minors have no source of income.
7. Learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the insured/complainant has committed the breach of the insurance policy by leaving the ignition key in the truck. The alleged theft in question has taken place to the negligence of the insured. He further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred because the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 02.05.2013 beyond the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of theft. In support of his contention he referred the following judgments:-
I Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nikhil Seth IV (2015) CPJ 195 (NC).
II Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Bhagwar Malwade IV (2015) CPJ 188 (NC).
8. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record. Indisputably, the vehicle in question was stolen on 03.10.2010 in the night and the FIR was lodged on the next day on 04.10.2010 by the insured. The vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the comprehensive insurance policy. The final un-trace report of the vehicle in question has also been produced by the complainant as Annexure C-4 & Annexure C-5 duly accepted by the Court. The counsel for the OP stressed that the insured has admitted that the driver of the vehicle left the ignition key in the vehicle. On the other side the counsel for the complainant submitted that the windows of the vehicle was duly locked by the insured. The glass of the window on the side of the conductor was removed which was found lying on the support and then the vehicle was stolen by the unknown person. The counsel for the complainant contended that the company could have settle the claim of the complainant in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nitin Khandelwal 2008 (4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2507 & Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010] Acci. C.R. 594 (SC).
9. The theft of the vehicle in question is not disputed by the OP because there is FIR which was lodged by the insured immediately after the theft of the vehicle and the un-trace report of the vehicle has been also obtained by the insured. The vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the comprehensive insurance policy. Under the terms and conditions of the comprehensive policy the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured. However, even in case of violation of the conditions of the policy, claim ought to be settled on a non standard basis. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim of the claimant in toto. The present complaint was filed by the widow of the insured and her two minor children and now it has been stated by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant no. 1 the mother of the minor children OP no. 2 & 3 has also died and there is nobody to look after them and they have no source of income and has prayed that a sympathetic view kindly be taken by this District Forum. In this case the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/-. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we direct the OPs to pay Rs. 4,05,000/- without any interest within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. However, if the OPs delays the aforesaid payment beyond 60 days then the OPs shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the expiry of the period of 60 days till the date of actual payment. The amount of compensation be kept in the name of the minors in the shape of FDR in equal shares in the nationalized bank till the date of attaining their majority. The accrued interest on the deposit may be withdrawn for the bringing up of the minors by the guardian. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 02.05.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
Present:- Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the vehicle in question was stolen in the night of 03.10.2010 during the insurance coverage period. An FIR No. 205 dated 04.10.2010 was registered with the concerned police station. The final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was accepted by the Court vide order dated 30.11.2011. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the Ops, the Ops have failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. The complainants further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, they had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, they had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the vehicle was not in the possession of insured and it was transferred to some other person therefore, the insured was having no insurable interest at alleged time of alleged theft of vehicle. It is submitted that he failed to park the vehicle at proper and guarded place and further failed to take the proper and necessary care of the vehicle while leaving the key in the vehicle. It is submitted that complainant have failed to supply the required information as well as documents demanded by the company. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C-16 along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record Annexure R1 to Annexure R-32.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle in question was stolen in the night of 03.10.2010 during the insurance coverage period. An FIR No. 205 dated 04.10.2010 Annexure C-2 was registered with the concerned police station. The final report Annexure C-4 under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was accepted by the Court vide order dated 30.11.2011 Annexure C-5. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the Ops and the Ops have failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. He further submitted that the husband of the complainant and as well as complainant have died, living behind minor son and daughter and these minors have no source of income.
7. Learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the insured/complainant has committed the breach of the insurance policy by leaving the ignition key in the truck. The alleged theft in question has taken place to the negligence of the insured. He further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred because the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 02.05.2013 beyond the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of theft. In support of his contention he referred the following judgments:-
I Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nikhil Seth IV (2015) CPJ 195 (NC).
II Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Bhagwar Malwade IV (2015) CPJ 188 (NC).
8. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record. Indisputably, the vehicle in question was stolen on 03.10.2010 in the night and the FIR was lodged on the next day on 04.10.2010 by the insured. The vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the comprehensive insurance policy. The final un-trace report of the vehicle in question has also been produced by the complainant as Annexure C-4 & Annexure C-5 duly accepted by the Court. The counsel for the OP stressed that the insured has admitted that the driver of the vehicle left the ignition key in the vehicle. On the other side the counsel for the complainant submitted that the windows of the vehicle was duly locked by the insured. The glass of the window on the side of the conductor was removed which was found lying on the support and then the vehicle was stolen by the unknown person. The counsel for the complainant contended that the company could have settle the claim of the complainant in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nitin Khandelwal 2008 (4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2507 & Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010] Acci. C.R. 594 (SC).
9. The theft of the vehicle in question is not disputed by the OP because there is FIR which was lodged by the insured immediately after the theft of the vehicle and the un-trace report of the vehicle has been also obtained by the insured. The vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the comprehensive insurance policy. Under the terms and conditions of the comprehensive policy the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured. However, even in case of violation of the conditions of the policy, claim ought to be settled on a non standard basis. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim of the claimant in toto. The present complaint was filed by the widow of the insured and her two minor children and now it has been stated by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant no. 1 the mother of the minor children OP no. 2 & 3 has also died and there is nobody to look after them and they have no source of income and has prayed that a sympathetic view kindly be taken by this District Forum. In this case the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/-. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we direct the OPs to pay Rs. 4,05,000/- without any interest within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. However, if the OPs delays the aforesaid payment beyond 60 days then the OPs shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the expiry of the period of 60 days till the date of actual payment. The amount of compensation be kept in the name of the minors in the shape of FDR in equal shares in the nationalized bank till the date of attaining their majority. The accrued interest on the deposit may be withdrawn for the bringing up of the minors by the guardian. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 02.05.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
