| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/364/17 Date of Institution:- 24.07.2017 Order Reserved on:- 18.04.2024 Date of Decision:- 11.06.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: ShriParamjeet Singh S/o ShriGajjan Singh R/o J-20-C, Pocket-J, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II, New Delhi .….. Complainant VERSUS RoyalSundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Through General Manager/Authorised Representative Maruti Insurance Booking Pvt. Ltd. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi - 110070 .…..Opposite Party Suresh Kumar Gupta, President - The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatvehicle bearing registration no.DL3CBU9183 being owned by him was insured with OP vide policy no.MOP2690040 valid from 30.12.2014-29.12.2015. On 08.11.2015, the vehicle was looted/stolen upon which FIR No.1672/2015 PS, VasantVihar, New Delhi was lodged on the same day. The information was given to the OP. He has applied for the insurance claim by supplying all documents to the OP. The untraced report was filed by the Police. The claim has not been passed by the OP. A legal notice dated 17.04.2017 was issued to the OP but in vain. There is deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP has filed the written statement wherein issuance of policy is not disputed. The vehicle has been allegedly snatched at Gun point from the driver Gurnam Singh of the complainant on 08.11.2015 upon which FIR was lodged. The OP was informed upon which OP appointed independent investigator to investigate the claim. The report dated 22.08.2016 was deposited by the investigator. The complainant was not cooperative and till date he could not arrange any meeting with his friend Suraj as per report. The complainant has also not provided DD report, untrace report, delayed intimation letter, driver statement, NCRB report, purchase invoice of the vehicle, service record of the vehicle, last one year bank statement, loan account statement for financer and form no.23,28,29,30 duly signed by the insurer. There is delay of five days in intimating to the insurance company which is violation of the condition number 1 of the insurance policy. The complainant was requested to clarify this vide letter dated 19.04.2016. On 13.06.2016, a letter was sent to complainant to clarify about the usage of vehicle before theft and insured bank account statement to process the claim but in vain. The letters were also issued on 01.08.2016 but in vain.
- The complainanthas misrepresented the Commission. On 05.03.2016, the vehicle has gone to Rohan Motor Ltd. for third free service which shows that claim of the complainant is false. The alleged theft has never taken place. The present case is fabricated. The condition number five of the insurance policy says that policy can be cancelled on the ground of misrepresentation, fraud and non-disclosure of material fact and non-cooperation by the insured. The allegations are not correct.
- The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.C1 to C11 though exhibits are not put on the documents.
- The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. PrashantPratap Singh in evidence, and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents i.e. insurance policy Ex.RW1, copy of investigation report dated 08.11.2015 Ex.RW2, copy of letter dated 19.04.2016 EX.RW3, copy of letters dated 13.06.2016 and 01.08.2016 EX,RW4& 5, copy of job card of Rohan Motors Ltd. Ex.RW6. Copy of the claim form Ex.RW7 showing that particulars are complete and true.
- We have heardthe Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.
- It is clear from the material on record that complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing registration NO.DL3CBU9183 which was insured with the OP vide policy Ex.RW1. Sh. Gurnam Singh was a driver of the complainant. On 08.11.2015,at 12.50 AM T-point near Qutub Institutional Area,KatwariaSarai, the car in question was taken away by unknown persons by pointing out some Iron object upon which matter was reported to the Police by Gurnam Singh and ultimately FIR no.1672/2015 dated 08.11.2015 PS, VasantVihar, New Delhi was registered. The Police have carried out the investigation and filed untraced report.
- The intimation was given by the complainant to the OP by the investigator was appointed and investigator has carried out the investigation and filed the investigation report dated 22.02.2016 Ex.RW2.
- The OP has demanded various documents from the complainant vide letter Ex.RW3 to 5but in vain and ultimately claim was not processed.
- The report of investigator Ex.RW2 shows that investigator has recorded the statement of Gurnam Singh. The report shows that FIR was registered on the same day. Suraj had informed the complainant but complainant did not produce Suraj to record his statement.Suraj is not the first informer to the Police so his statement is of no value to the OP.
- The Investigator could have collected DD No and untrace report from the Police Station as the Police have filed untraced report. The police report nowhere doubts the incident or ownership of the vehicle of the complainant.
- Thevehicle was hypothecated with HDFC. The complainant was under an obligation to pay the amount to the bank on the receipt of insurance claim as insurance company has nothing to do with the factum of hypothecation of the vehicle with the bank.
- The OP has taken the plea that car was taken to Rohan Motors Ltd. for third free services and job card is Ex.RW.RW6. The Police have filed the untrace report on 18.03.2016. The job card is dated 05.03.2016. The investigation was undergoing. The unknown persons have allegedly snatched/looted the car. The Police report nowhere suggest that complainant has any role to play in the incident or the case lodged by the complainant is false as Police is the best agency to carry out the investigation. The service at Rohan Motor Services cannot be said to be at the behest of the complainant. The OP cannot draw any motive on the part of the complainant even if free third service was done as Police report does not suggest any complicity of the complainant.
- The delayed intimation of the theft of the car to the insurance company is no longer a valid issue. In Gurshinder Singh vsSriram General Insurance Co. 2020 (11) SCC, it was held by their lordship that delayed intimation to the insurance company would not forfeit the total insurance claim if an FIR has been lodged immediately within a reasonable time and all other conditions are met.
- In AmalenduSahoovs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., it was held by their lordship that if any condition of the policy has been violated the claim might be settled on a non-standard basis up to 75% of otherwise admissible claim.
- To our mind, even if an insured breaches the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, the claim may still be settled under non-standard terms.
- There was delayed intimation to the OP but this does not justify to deny the claim when FIR was lodgedimmediately. The Police have filed untraced report. The OP has not disputed the theft of car while demanding the documents. The OP cannot evade the obligation to settle the claim under non-standard terms i.e. the claim be settled up to 75% of the insured declared value of the car. The rejection of the claim is deficiency of service on the part of OP.
- In view of our discussion, the complaint is allowed to the effect that the OP has wrongly rejected the claim as claim should have been settled under non-standard terms. The OP shall allow the claim to the extent of 75% of the insured declared value of the car in the insurance policy Ex.RW1. The OP has not cleared the claim despite the legal notice dated 17.04.2017. The complainant is entitled for interest @7% from the date of rejection of the claim till the realization of the claim amount. The complainant has undergone mental harassment and agony and rejection of the claim led to the filing of this complaint so complainant is entitled for compensation on this score. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,000/- on the account of mental harassment and agony and Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 11.06.2024.
| |
