Delhi

North East

CC/96/2021

Sh. Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 96/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar, R/o H.No. 447, St No. 4, Kabir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	SBI General Insurance Through its Manager, Regd. & Corporate Office, “Natraj” 101,201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway, And Anderikurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumabi-400069	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:

02.08.21 06.03.23 05.07.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms.Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms.Adarsh Nain, Member

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant is registered owner of the vehicle (Make Tata Motor Safari) bearing no. DL8CM9690, insured by Opposite Party i.e. SBI General Insurance vide policy bearing no. 0000000007683442, valid from 30.11.17 to 29.11.18. On 05.02.18 the said vehicle got stolen and Complainant lodged FIR bearing no. 3810/2018, Police Station- Welcome. The investigation officer of FIR submitted his report before concerned court regarding stolen of Complainant’s vehicle and Complainant sent copy of report to Opposite Party and its associates. The Complainant stated that he approached the Opposite Party in respect of his claim but Opposite Party and its associates refused to pay the claim of Complainant. The Complainant had also sent a legal notice dated 09.04.21 to Opposite Party via speed post but Opposite Party neitherreplied to the legal notice nor made paymentto Complainant. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 7,01,400/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- for mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party while admitting the policy, took preliminary objections that upon lodging of the claim, the investigation was conducted by the Opposite Party and as per the investigator’s report, the Complainant assured the investigator to provide requisite documents. Thereafter, the Opposite Party allegedly issued several reminders asking for requisite documents in order to finalise the claim. It is further submitted that when the Complainant did not respond and provide papers, the Opposite Party closed the claim vide claim closure letter dated 22.03.2019. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party that the vehicle in question was hypothecated with ICICI bank. It is submitted that in view of above, there is no negligence on their part and the Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed in the complaint and the complaint should be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh. JitendraDhabhai, Manager Legal of Opposite Party wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that that his vehicle was duly insured by the Opposite party for the insured value of 7,01,400/-. Since the said vehicle was stolen, the Complainant lodged an FIR and also filed the claim with the Opposite Party. The police has also filed final report/ Untrace report which has been duly accepted by the Ld.Court. The Complainant alleges that in spite of providing all the documents and information related to the incident, the Opposite Party has not paid his claim, hence, committed deficiency of service.
7. On the other hand, the Opposite Party while admitting the policy, contended that the investigation was conducted by the Opposite Party and as per the investigator’s report, the Complainant assured the investigator to provide requisite documents. It is alleged that the Complainant had not provided the documents required for finalising the claim inspite of several reminders to that effect. It is further submitted that when the Complainant did not respond and provide papers, the Opposite Party closed the claim for want of requisite documents. It has also been submitted by the Opposite Party that the vehicle in question was hypothecated with ICICI bank. The Opposite Party’s contention is that the Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed in the complaint.
8.  It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the Opposite Party and theft took place during the subsistence of valid policy. It is also admitted that the claim of the insured/Complainant was closed by the Opposite Party vide claim closure letter dated 22.03.2019 on the ground of non- receipt of the pre-requisite documents. The Opposite Party’s case is that after conducting investigation, the Complainant assured the investigator to provide requisite documents but did not provide inspite of several reminders issued. On the other hand, the Complainant contends that he had not received any such reminders and he had submitted those documents including the untrace report.
9. The perusal of the material on record shows that the Opposite Party has only filed copy of reminders issued to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has failed to substantiate their contention that those reminders were received by the Complainant, hence, their contention cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the insurance company/ Opposite Party cannot be allowed to refuse/close a genuine claim under a valid policy merely because requite documents were not provided.
10. It is to be noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. 2018 (1) CPR907 (SC) observed – “…. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on pure technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of the policy holders in the insurance industry. …. It needs no emphasis that Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection the interest of the consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction.”

 

11. In view of above, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service towards the Complainant by not paying Complainant’s valid claim under the effective Policy in force at the time of incident.

 

12.  It is to be noted theOpposite Party has contended that the vehicle in question was hypothecated initially with HDFC Bank Ltd. and second hypothecation with ICICI bank and the Complainant has neither rebutted the contention nor had made the finance company party. The retail invoice of the vehicle filed by the Complainant also shows the hypothecation with HDFC Bank.
13. Thus, we hold that Opposite Party insurance company is guilty of deficiency of services, and direct the Opposite party to pay 7,01,400/-(Rs. Seven lakh, One  Thousand and Four hundred only), the insured amount under the policy along with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery,subject to submission of No Objection Certificate from the bank concerned and the other relevant documents by the Complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with 6 % interest from the date of this order till its recovery.

 

 

14. Order announced on05.07.23

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

( Anil Kumar Bamba)            Member

(Adarsh Nain)       Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President