Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 136.
Instituted on : 24.03.2015.
Decided on : 11.04.2016.
Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Dhoop Singh R/o H.No.439/29, Chotu Ram Nagar, Near Model Town, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate office Sunderum Towers 45-46 whites Road, Chennai-600014, (service effected through Manager/Concerned Officer Palm Ford, Jind Road, Opp. Delhi Public School, Rohtak.
- Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Riders House Plot No.136, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. (Service effected through Manager/Concerned Officer).
- Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., registered office 21, Patullos Road, Chennai-600002.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle Ford Figo bearing no.HR-12Q-7698 and the same was insured with the opposite party under the policy No.VFP0041169000100000 for the period 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014 for Rs.319725/-. It is averred that on 01.01.2014 the vehicle was robbed and FIR No.2 was registered in P.S.Lakhan Majra Distt. Rohtak. It is averred that the FIR has been registered on wrong facts as no deal was done with Sanjay or Anil. Anil is the friend of complainant and Sanjay is friend of Anil. Sanjay was in shock at that time and his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police and police converted the same into FIR. It is averred that the police could not trace the unknown robbers and has prepared untracted report and submitted on 30.10.2014. It is averred that complainant informed the opposite parties about the robbery of his car and the opposite parties sent a letter on 06.08.2014 to fulfill the condition as mentioned in the letter and the complainant fulfilled all the formalities but despite his repeated requests, the opposite party has neither rejected nor paid the claim amount to the complainant. As such it is averred that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant has sought the amount of Rs.319725/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that the complainant had made a belated claim on 05.08.2014 stating that his vehicle got stolen by some miscreants on 01.01.2014 and admittedly this claim was informed to the opposite party after 7 months and 5 days. It is averred that the opposite parties appointed the investigator who as per his report has revealed that the complainant had already sold the vehicle to Mr. Anil for consideration and then in turn Mr. Anil had sold the vehicle to Mr. Sanjay, whilst that being so the vehicle got stolen on 01.01.2014 when Mr. Sanjay was going to office as few unknown persons came by Bolero vehicle and snatched the vehicle on gun point. It is averred that the complainant made a belated claim on 05.08.2014 stating that his vehicle was stolen on 01.01.2014 as the same is admitted by the complainant in the complainant. It is averred that the complainant had informed the opposite parties about the theft after a lapse of 7 months 5 days which confirms about the grave negligent attitude on the part of the complainant. It is further submitted that the policy terms strictly provided that all loss or damages shall be intimated immediately. It is averred that the complainant failed to produce the claim documents till date. It is averred that the claim of the complainant is not admissible and payable as the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. As such it is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per cover note Ex.C1 the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party in the name of Rajesh Kumar i.e. complainant for the period from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014 and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.319725/-. It is also not disputed that the alleged vehicle had been stolen on 01.01.2014 and FIR Ex.R4 was lodged on the same day i.e. 01.01.2014. But the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.R6 has submitted that there has been delay in intimating the loss to the company by 8 months above thereby violating condition no.1 of the policy and has sought some documents from the complainant to process the claim further. But the claim has not been settled by the opposite parties till date.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the opposite parties vide their written statement has submitted that the investigation revealed that the complainant had sold the vehicle to Mr. Anil for consideration and then in turn Mr. Anil had sold the vehicle to Mr. Sanjay but to prove its contention, opposite parties have neither placed on record investigation report nor any document. Moreover the R.C. and insurance policy still exists in the name of complainant. Hence the opposite parties have failed to prove the fact that the complainant had sold the vehicle and has no insurable interest in the vehicle. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law laid down in II(2008)CPJ 364(NC) titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shrawan Bhati, Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Sale proceed not received by complainant-No evidence produced to prove that amount has been exchanged-Insurable interest still lies with complainant, who is still legal owner of vehicle-Denying indemnification on mere assumption and presumption not sustainable-Insurer liable under policy”, as per IV(2005)ACC715(DB) titled Vipin Kumar Sharma Vs. Jagwant Kaur & Ors. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that transfer of vehicle takes place only when requirements prescribed under Act complied with registering authority and enters same in its record and owner is a person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered in the record of registering authority. Regarding the contention of opposite parties that there was delay of 7 months 5 days in giving intimation the opposite parties, it is observed that the FIR was lodged on the same day of theft/robbery i.e. 01.01.2014. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”, as per 2014(3)CLT447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Repudiation- On the ground that there was delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R. and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?-Held-No-FIR lodged and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company-Thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced-it was a genuine claim of the complainant-Appeal dismissed”. Regarding the non submission of documents reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT 567 titled Upper India Carriers Vs. M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. whereby Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, Chandigarh has held that: “Despite submission of report by the Surveyor, the opposite parties have not taken decision for 1½ years, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be justified and the complaint, on this ground, cannot be said to be premature” and as per 1(2007) CPJ 458 titled as Bhagwanti Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Commission, Shimla has held that: “Mere letter of reminder asking from party, to provide certain documents and on failure to do needful, insurer to treat claim as ‘no claim’ does not amount to repudiation”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed all the documents e.g. copy of insurance policy, copy of R.C., letter regarding non transfer of R.C., copy of untraced report etc. have been supplied to the opposite parties and photocopy of the same has also been placed on record but despite that the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the opposite parties till date which is illegal and unjustifiable and the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle and as per policy document Ex.C1/Ex.R1 the IDV is Rs.319725/-
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.319725/-(Rupees three lac nineteen thousand seven hundred twenty five only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.03.2015 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite parties failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………
Ved Pal, Member
