Haryana

Karnal

CC/26/2017

Majahir Beg - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sameep Raja Bathla

03 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.26 of 2017

                                                      Date of instt. 20.01.2017

                                                      Date of decision:03.07.2018

 

Majahir Beg son of Shri Jaheer Beg resident of Mohalla Naya Kanoon Goyan P.S. Kandhla Tehsil-Kairana District Shamli-Uttar Pradesh.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at SCO-388-389 First floor Karan Commercial Complex Mugal Canal Road Karnal through its Manager.

2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Corporate office at Natraj 101,201 and 301, Junction of Western Express Highway and Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 through its Manager.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President    

                Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Sameep Raja Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Virender Sharma Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                         (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his truck bearing registration no.HR69A-5618 with the OP no.1,vide policy no.0000000001552942, valid from 02.02.2014 to 01.02.2015. On 11.03.2014 the said truck was put on fire and got burnt by some unknown persons near village Sevali District Sonepat and a FIR no.59 dated 11.03.3014 was got registered in this regard in the Police Station Rai District Sonepat. Complainant intimated the OP in the said incident through their agent Mr. Deepak Chawla on 12.03.2014. On 12.03.2014 a surveyor was appointed by the OP who conducted the initial search and also clicked photographs of the said burnt Truck, accordingly a claim no.117543 was allotted to the complainant by the OP no.2 after furnishing of the entire relevant documents required for the process of claim settlement. After taking release order of the said burnt truck form the concerned court the complainant took it to Shahjad Body Repairs Muzaffarnagar there also a surveyor Mr.R.K. Jain also made an initial report of the truck and also got clicked photographs of the said truck and assured the complainant that his claim will lbe processed. Thereafter, complainant approached the office of Mr. R.K. Jain and OPs many times for processing of his claim but OPs always delaying the matter on one pretext or the other, then the complainant came to know that his claim case file has been assigned to Mr. Alok Virmani and Mr. K.B. Raju employees of the OP no.2. The complainant again came to know that now his claim file has been transferred to Mr. Vikas Dev. Complainant approached to said officer for processing of his claim but the said officer of OP did not pay any heed to his genuine request. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.09.2016 to OPs. After receiving the said notice complainant waiting for settlement of his claim but complainant received a letter no.322 dated 5.10.2016 from the OP to the effect that because the burning incident was not intimated to the OP well within time and also the requisite documents were not furnished to them as such they refused to settle the claim of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, it is submitted that the insurance company intimated the complainant several times to provide the necessary documents i.e. Bank account statement updated till last month; loan account statement with vehicle details; verified copy of Road Tax through reminder, but there was no response from the complainant at last company send claim closer letter dated 6.1.2016 to the complainant to remind the complainant about the claim lodged by him on the caption subject and through letter dated on 1.12.2015, 21.12.2015 and final letter dated 28.12.2015 for submission of pending documents. But insurance company has not received any response from the complainant when the insurance company constrained to conclude that complainant are no longer interested in the claim lodged then insurance company has closed the claim. It is further submitted that there was delay of 38 days in intimating the said claim to insurer which in itself is a violation to policy terms and conditions. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 9.10.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R34 and closed the evidence on 22.05.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant was the owner of truck bearing no.HR69A 5618 insured with OPs, vide policy no. 0000000001552942, valid from 02.02.2014 to 01.02.2015. On 11.03.2014 the abovesaid truck was put on fire and was burnt by some unknown persons. FIR no.59 dated 11.03.2014 under section 436 IPC was registered in Police Station Rai, District Sonepat.

7.             According to the complainant, he gave intimation about the incident on 12.03.2014 to the OPs through their agent Mr. Deepak Chawla and the surveyor was appointed by the OPs, who conducted the initial search and took some photographs of the burnt truck accordingly a claim no.117543 was allotted to the complainant. It is further alleged by the complainant that the truck in question was taken to Shahjad Body Repairs Muzaffarnagar and there also a surveyor Mr.R.K. Jain made the survey of the truck in question. It is also alleged that the complainant came to know that his claim has been assigned to Mr. Alok Virmani and Mr. K.B. Raju employees of the OP no.2 and accordingly the complainant made request to them but to no use. Thereafter, the claim file was transferred to Mr. Vikas Dev and so the complainant also approached him but he did not pay any heed to the claim of the complainant. He further argued that the police was searching the accused but the investigation officer at last file an untraced report, which was accepted by Illaqa Magistrate, vide order dated 2.7.2016. It is further argued that the complainant submitted the documents as and when demanded by the OPs but no receipt of the same was issued by the OPs. At last the complainant gave legal notice dated 19.01.2016 and thereafter the reply of the legal notice vide  letter dated 5.10.2016 was received from the OPs which was duly replied by the complainant through his Advocate on 18.10.2016 and sent through registered post the copy of said reply is Ex.C8 and the net generated delivery report is Ex.C9, vide which it is clear that the same was delivered to the OPs on 22.10.2016. Complainant produced the copy of judgment dated 4.10.2017 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) no.742 of 2015) titled as Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and Anr.

8.             On the other hand, the OPs contended that the complainant was requested several times to provide the necessary documents, vide letter dated 1.12.2015, 21.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 and at last the company sent the claim closer letter dated 6.1.2016. It is further contended that the case of the complainant was a suspected case of illegal transportation of cattle involved which was attributed to the vandalism and burning of the truck in question. It is further contended that there was delay of 38 days in giving intimation to the OPs. It is further contended that false FIR has been lodged by the complainant. It is also contended that complainant has not sent any reply or provide any document to the insurance company. It is also argued that no letter dated 18.10.2016 as alleged was received by the OPs.

9.             The OPs produced on the file the copies of letter dated 1.12.2015, 21.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 as Ex.R2, R3 and R5 respectively. The complainant argued that he submitted each and every time the documents mentioned in the letter but the OPs have not issued any receipt. It is admitted case of the parties that the OP had replied the legal notice of the complainant vide reply dated 5.10.2016 Ex.C7. According to the complainant he replied the said letter dated 5.10.2016 of the OPs  vide his letter dated 18.10.2016 and also attached the required documents and information with his letter dated 18.10.2016 and the same was sent to the OPs through registered post. The complainant has produced the copy of said reply dated 18.10.2016 as Ex.C8. The complainant has also produced the net generated delivery report as Ex.C9. From Ex.C9 it is very much clear that the registered letter was delivered on 22.10.2016.

10.            On the other hand, the OPs even denied the receipt of this reply dated 18.10.2016 which is against the record because the delivery report Ex.C9 shows that the same has been delivered to the OPs. From this fact it can be presumed that the complainant might have supplied the documents earlier also. Even after receipt of this document the OPs instead of settling the claim, denied the receipt of the letter, therefore, the OPs have not come with clean hands before this Forum. Vide letter dated 18.10.2016 Ex.C-8, the complainant also explained the reason of delay that he (complainant) gave the information on 12.03.2014 to the agent of the OPs namely Deepak Kumar on his mobile phone no.9215026444 about the incident. This fact has also been mentioned in the complaint. The OPs have not denied the fact that they have no agent with the name of Deepak Kumar. Therefore, the alleged delay has been duly explained by the complainant. In view of the judgment of Om Parkash’s case (supra) the delay has been properly explained and so the case of the complainant is a genuine case. The complainant has also produced the copy of untraced report Ex.C-3 and including the order dated 2.7.2010 of the Illaqa Magistrate regarding acceptance of untraced report.  From the untraced report it is clear that the FIR was not false and the same has gone as untraced. Therefore, the contention of OPs that the complainant had lodged a false FIR has not force. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs pleaded that the case of the complainant was a suspected case of illegal transportation of cattle but the OPs have not produced any cogent evidence about the illegal transportation of cattles in the said truck inspite of defect that the OPs had got investigated the case. So, without cogent evidence the claim cannot be denied only on the basis of suspicion, therefore, this contention of the OPs has no force. In these facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the OPs have wrongly closed the claim case of the complainant. Hence the OPs are deficient in services.

11.            It is pertinent to mention here that the insured value of the truck in question was Rs.11,80,000/- as is clear from Ex.C-2 the copy of the policy. The OPs have placed the report of the surveyor regarding the assessment of the loss as Ex.R-17 vide which the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,50,232/-. In this regard we can rely upon the authority 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of this authority as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs are liable to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.8,50,232/-.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.8,50,232/- the loss assessed by the surveyor to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.11000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.07.2018                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                       (Anil Sharma)

                            Member