DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ============ Consumer Complaint No | : | 418 OF 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 08.09.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 05.11.2012 |
Prit Pal Singh s/o sh. Ranjit Singh, R/o H.No. 2926, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant Vs [1] Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. [2] Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ---- Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant. Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Parties. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The Complainant is the owner of a TATA Safari vehicle, bearing Registration No.CH-04-J7293, which was comprehensively insured with the Opposite Parties from 21.07.2009 to 20.07.2010. The I.D.V. of the vehicle is Rs.5,50,000/- (Cover Note and Policy is at Annexure C-1 & C-2). As per the version of the Complainant, the vehicle was stolen when it was parked in front of House No. 248-B, Sector 51, Chandigarh on 22.07.2009. The Complainant has stated that he informed the Opposite Parties about the theft on the same date by calling the Helpline No.180030028282 and also informed the Police on 23.07.2009. The Complainant has also stated that he as well as the police tried to trace the vehicle, but eventually when the vehicle was not traced, an F.I.R. was lodged on 30.07.2009 with Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The untraceable report was also given by the police authorities on 01.11.2009 (Annexure C-3). The OPs appointed Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Surveyor, who was handed over all the documents by the Complainant. The Complainant also furnished an affidavit dated 28.01.2010 to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-4), along with F.I.R. and untraceable report. The untraceable report was also submitted in the Court of Ms. Anupamish Modi, JMIC, Chandigarh and an order dated 09.04.2010 was passed by the said Court which is at Annexure C-5. The Complainant thereafter filed a claim form with the Opposite Parties to settle the claim. Another Surveyor Mr. Suresh Bishnoi was also appointed by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has submitted that he completed all the formalities with the new Surveyor also. Thereafter, the case was referred to one Mr. Mohinder. The Complainant has also submitted that despite contacting the Opposite Parties a number of times, he did not receive any positive response and his claim has not yet been settled, despite a lapse of over two years. The Complainant has thus, filed the instant complaint, with a prayer for payment of the I.D.V. of the vehicle, along with interest and compensation, besides cost of litigation. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case. 3. The Opposite Parties in their reply besides taking certain frivolous objections has stated that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Further, the Opposite Parties have admitted insuring the vehicle of the Complainant for the period from 21.07.2009 to 20.07.2010 (midnight) for IDV of Rs.5.50 lacs. The Opposite Parties have stated that intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was received on 28.07.2009 whereas the vehicle in question was stolen on 22/23.07.2009 and F.I.R. was lodged on 30.07.2009 which is 09 days after the incident. It is also stated that it was a case of close proximity as the vehicle was insured on 21.07.2009 and the theft took place on 22/23.7.2009. The Complainant has not given the intimation to the answering Opposite Parties as is required, which is a violation of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The Opposite Parties have also referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein the delay in lodging of F.I.R. and intimation to the Opposite Party was a cause for non-payment of the claim. The Opposite Parties have also objected that the keys submitted with them by the Complainant do not match. Also, the Complainant has not provided details of issuance and clearance of cheques out of his cheque book from which one cheque was used for payment of insurance premium. Denying all other allegations, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the Parties and have perused the record. 6. Before going into the merits of the case, we need to examine the surveyor report which has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties at Annex.R-3. The relevant details of the surveyor report are as under: - i. | Date of issuing cover note is 21.07.2009. | ii. | Date of collection of premium (in the case of close proximity case): 21.07.2008 through Cheque No. 040551 dated 21.07.2009. | iii. | As per insured’s bank account record the cheque given for the insurance of the vehicle was got cash from his bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) on 27.07.2009.” | iv. | Date and time of incident of theft is intervening night of 22/23.07.2009. | v. | The F.I.R. is dated 30.07.2009 | vi. | Conclusion: | | | | |
Whether date, place and incident of theft are genuine or not | : | Genuine | Any Breach of Policy Condition | : | No | Fully Payable, or Payable on Sub-standard basis or No Claim with reason | : | Payable on sub-standard basis |
| “So after thorough investigation from place of theft, verification of police record and statement given by the insured, Mr. Daljit Singh and witnessed by several it came into noticed that the vehicle was got theft on intervening night of 22/23.7.2009. But as this is a case of close proximity the company may check the pre inspection record done by Auto risk vide Ref. No. 10817”. |
7. Looking at the facts on record, the case of the Complainant is that despite holding a valid insurance policy for which due premium had been paid on time and giving correct information to the Opposite Parties, his genuine claim has not been paid. In this regard, the Complainant has placed on record Annexure C-6, which is a letter dated 25.03.2010, received from the CPIO, Police Headquarters, U.T. Chandigarh, obtained under the Right to information Act. The relevant excerpt of which reads as under: - “As information supplied by Inspector Communication a message regarding theft of Vehicle No. CH-04-J-7293 Tata Safari Car had been received in Control Room on 23.07.2009 at 0727 hours and simultaneously, it was flashed on all nets of Control Room. Sd/- Central Public Information Officer (Comn.) U.T. Police Headquarters, Chandigarh. 8. The Complainant has also placed on record the F.I.R. dated 30.7.2009 and untraced report dated 01.11.2009 to prove his bonafides. The Opposite Parties have refused to make payment of claim by taking objection that the complaint is beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum. This objection, to our mind, is unjustified as the claim is less than Rs.20.00 lacs. The Opposite Parties have also stated that the keys provided by the Complainant do not match. This objection has not been raised by the Surveyor in his report and hence, is again, to our mind, not sustainable. The Opposite Parties have further contended that the Complainant has not given cheque details of payments made by him for the premium, as it is a case of close proximity. It can be seen that the position and details are clear in the surveyor report, as already discussed above. Furthermore, Opposite Parties have placed on record a letter dated 15.04.2010 (Annexure R-7), written by the Complainant, wherein all documents, in original, were supplied to them by the Complainant. Again, Opposite Parties have objected to the delay in intimation to the Opposite Parties and lodging of F.I.R. It is clear from the information obtained by the Complainant under the Right to Information Act (Annexure C-6), already reproduced above that the Police were informed on the same day. The Complainant has stated that he has informed the Opposite Parties about the theft on the same date by calling the Helpline No.180030028282, pursuant to which the Opposite Parties appointed the Surveyor. Hence, all the objections taken by the Opposite Parties for non-payment of the claim, to our mind, seems frivolous and unjustified and, thus, the claim of the Complainant definitely needs to be paid though in accordance with the surveyor’s report. 9. Neither the Complainant nor the Opposite Parties have filed any objections to deny or contest the report given by the Surveyor. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777 has held:- “Insurance Act, 1938 – S.64-UM – Surveyor/ Loss assessor’s report – Weightage to be given – Held, though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report – No infirmity found in Surveyor’s report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report.” It is thus clear from the above ruling that the Surveyor’s report is final, unless challenged by either the Complainant or the Opposite Party with specific contentions and averments. Neither the Complainant, nor the Opposite Party, in the present case, have filed any written objections to the surveyor’s report. Hence, for all purposes the report is final and binding on both the parties. 10. In the situation, it is safe to deduce that the claim of the Complainant ought to be settled by the Opposite Party on the basis of Surveyor Report (Annexure R-3). The surveyor in his report has allowed payment of the claim on “sub-standard basis”. However, the rules regarding payment on this “sub-standard basis” has not been explained anywhere. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to make payment to the Complainant in accordance with the I.D.V. of the vehicle on “sub-standard basis”, as per rules. Opposite Parties shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. 11. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the above order within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the determined amount to the Complainant, along with interest @12% per annum, from the date of this order, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 05th November, 2012. Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER “Dutt”
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
