Haryana

StateCommission

CC/89/2014

Sachin Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram GIC - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

Complaint Case No.89 of 2014

Date of the Institution:05.09.2014

Date of Decision:15.12.2016

 

Sachin Yadav son of Sh. Hukam Chand resident of V & PO Teekli, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager authorized signatory, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

                                                                                                .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Himanshu Puri, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.     Sachin Yadav has filed complaint under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Siri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., praying the following relief:-

“that the OP company may kindly be directed to settle the claim of the dumper in question and to make the payment of the insured amount with interest to the petitioner and the OP company may also be burdened with heavy costs and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the petitioner due to defective service of the respondent.”

 

2.     Briefly stated, the complainant Sachin yadav, is owner of HIWA Dumper bearing Regd. No.HR-55-L-7212, which he purchased from Pasco showroom, Chandigarh on 30.09.2010 for Rs.20,60,000/- by getting it  financed from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The vehicle was insured by him with the OP vide Policy No.102015/31/11/006199 for the period 18.10.2010 to 17.10.2011 for a sum assured Rs.21,50,000/-. The complainant alleged that on the intervening night of 23/24 March, 2011 some unknown person had stolen it from Bilaspur Chowk, P.S. Bilaspur, Gurgaon and he lodged FIR  No.58 dated 24.03.2011 under Section 379 IPC at about 3.20 hours. The Police, however, failed to trace out the stolen vehicle and sent Untraced Report dated 02.06.2011. The complainant also informed the OP in this regard and after completing the necessary formalities he asked to settle the dispute. The vehicle was financed by the Tata Motors and it was the only source of his livelihood of which he had to clear the remaining installments. However, sufficient time expired but the OP failed to settle the claim. Aggrieved against this, the complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the OP, filed the present complaint on 03.09.2014.

3.     In reply, the OP pleaded that complainant had violated condition No.5 of the Policy, as he failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle and thus, the complaint was not maintainable nor was he entitled to any claim. However, it is admitted that the vehicle in dispute was having insured value of Rs.21,50,000/-. In addition OP denied the claim of the complainant, as there was violation of terms and conditions of the Policy regarding which the complainant was informed vide letter dated 15.12.2011. On this basis, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.     In order to substantiate the allegations leveled in the complaint, the complainant has himself appeared in the witness box, in addition to his own affidavit. He has stated on oath that the vehicle was stolen on 23.04.2011, regarding which information was sent to the Insurance Company on 24.04.2011 and lodged the FIR with Police on the same day. He has further stated  that at the time of theft the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.21,50,000/- and he had taken full care of the security of the vehicle. There was no lapse on his or his driver’s part. In order to support his averments, he has produced copy of the FIR made to the Police, information sent in writing to the insurance company and the copy of the indemnity cum declaration undertaking along with the documents regarding financing of the vehicle, under dispute.

5.     In reply, the OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Amandeep Sharma, their Legal Officer, in which it has been stated that infact the complainant himself was negligent as the key was left in the vehicle, which was parked across the road. Therefore, the OP was not liable to pay the insured amount as it was a violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Apart from this, OP has not produced any other documents in support of their stand.

6.     We have thoroughly gone through the record and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. According to the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, his version as averred in the complaint stands fully substantiated. The theft had taken place on in the first year of the vehicle when the vehicle was still in a good and roadworthy condition. Therefore, the insured value of the vehicle being Rs.21,50,000/- is a relevant consideration for the assessment of the loss of vehicle. The mere fact that the complainant reported the matter to the Police as well as to the OP immediately after the theft fully corroborates the time and place of the theft and there was no room of any distortion of facts regarding the thefts. On the other hand the plea taken by the OP that the vehicle was parked across the road and the key was left in the vehicle was only after thought to justify the repudiation of the insurance claim. It has further to place on record any term and condition of the policy which was violated by the complainant.

7.     Consequently we are fully satisfied with the genuineness of the claim of the complainant and its repudiation by the insurance company clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay the insured value of the vehicle along with 9% p.a. thereon from the date of repudiation of the claim and Rs.21,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant with Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

 

December 15th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.