Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/521

Suman Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gagandeep S. Adv

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 521 dated 07.11.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 29.07.2022.

 

Suman Rani daughter of Satish Kumar, resident of House No.25, Street No.1, m Park, Bank Colony, Near Raju Karyana Store, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, EPIP, RICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022, through its Director/Managing Director Authorized Person/Local Manager.    
2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 18-19, 3^rd Floor, Jandu Tower, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through it Branch Manager/Authorized person.                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection    Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Ms. Suman Rani in person with Sh. Gagandeep                                          Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she got her TVS  Jupitor Scooty  bearing registration No.PB-10GX-9885 insured from the OPs vide policy No.105029/31/19/009288 valid from 12.10.2018 to 11.10.2019. On 03.06.2019, when the complainant went to see her friend Kulwinder Kaur at her residence in Basant Extension, Near Monica Gas Agency, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana, she parked the scooty outside the house of her friend. When she came out at about 04.30 PM, the scooty was found to have been stolen. In this regard, the matter was reported to the police and an FIR No.75 dated 11.06.2019  under Section 379 IPC was lodged with the police of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. A claim was lodged with the OPs but the same has been rejected by them vide letter dated 15.07.2019 on the ground of violation of condition No.4 of the policy. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant got served a legal notice on the OPs but despite that the claim was not reimbursed. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be made to reimburse the claim of the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the claim towards the theft of the insured vehicle was intimated on 14.06.2019 at 03.19 PM and the same was registered and processed. An investigation namely Capital Risk Management Co. was appointed to investigate the claim who submitted report dated 22.06.2019 stating that the insured had left the keys in the vehicle itself. Thus, the complainant was guilty of deliberate and willful gross negligence which constitutes violation of condition No.4 of the policy which provides that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in an efficient condition. Therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant Ms. Suman Rani submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex- C10 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amandeep Sharma Assistant Claims Manager of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6.                It has been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that in her affidavit attached with the report of investigator, the complainant had candidly admitted that she was having two keys of the scooty and one of the keys was stolen with the scooty itself and the other key was handed over by her to the police. According to the counsel for the OPs, it is amply proved that the key was left in the scooty itself due to which it was stolen and, therefore, this is an act of gross negligence on the part of the insured which disentitled her from seeking any claim.

7.                On the contrary, the counsel for the complainant has argued that in the FIR there is no mention of the key having been left in the scooty and the affidavit might have been obtained wrongfully by the investigator.

8.                Having thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that in this case, it is not the stand of the OPs that the theft was not genuine. There is no allegation in the FIR that the ignition key was left in the scooty itself. However, in the affidavit allegedly submitted by the complainant before the investigator, no doubt it is mentioned that the original key was stolen with the scooty itself but it is not clear as to whether the key was left in the ignition itself or it was left somewhere else in the scooty, may be in its dickey or otherwise. In Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajender in 2017 (2) CLT 183 of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, it has been held that in the light of guidelines issued by IRDA circular dated 20.09.2011 the genuine claim should not be rejected on the technical grounds unless the decision of the insurer is bade on sound, logic and valid grounds. Similarly, in 2011 (1) CLT 517 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kamal Singhal in a case of rejection of claim on the grounds of breach of policy conditions and on the reason that the reasonable care was not taken, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the claim should not be rejected in toto. Rather it should be settled on non-standard basis and in the cited case, the claim was settled on non-standard basis to the extent of 70% of the claim. In the light of law laid down in the sited case, in our considered, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to settle the claim in the instant case also on standard basis to the extent of 70% of the ID value of the scooty.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OPs to settle the claim on non standard bass to the extent of 70% of the insured value of the vehicle. The amount of the claim shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:29.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Suman Rani Vs Shri Ram General Insurance co.                       CC/19/521 

Present:       Complainant Ms. Suman Rani in person with Sh. Gagandeep                     Singh, Advocate.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OPs to settle the claim on non standard bass to the extent of 70% of the insured value of the vehicle. The amount of the claim shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                          President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:29.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.