Per Justice Mr.S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President
1. Heard. This appeal takes an exception to the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer Complaint No.230/2006 decided on 03/04/2010. By this order, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/insurance company to pay `6,50,000/- less 10% depreciation `65,000/- = `5,85,000/- towards theft claim of insurance along with 9% interest p.a. with effect from 04/05/2005 till its final recovery. By way of compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- and towards cost `5000/- have been granted. If the amount not paid, additional penal interest @ 3% has been charged.
2. The original complainant/respondent was the owner of vehicle bearing No. MH-04-CD-874 and it was purchased after taking loan from H.D.F.C. Bank on 09/11/2004. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant and it was a comprehensive insurance policy. The said vehicle was stolen by unknown person on 04/05/2005 between 3.00 a.m. to 7 a.m. from public road at Ulhasnagar. Accordingly the complainant had lodged the police complaint at Ulhasnagar Police Station. After receipt of the said complaint, the FIR was registered by the Ulhasnagar Police Station being CR No.0/2005 dated 04/05/2005. The said crime also investigated and after investigation police have submitted “A” summary report to the Magistrate and also informed to the Magistrate that the vehicle of the complainant could not be traceable. “A” summary was also granted by the Magistrate.
3. Thereafter, since the vehicle was not traceable, the complainant filed insurance claim before the Insurance Company. But the claim of the complainant was not settled by the insurance company and therefore the respondent filed the consumer complaint as stated above and it was allowed.
4. In the original complaint, the insurance company filed written version. We have perused the written version. In its written version, the only stand taken by the insurance company is that after claim form received from the complainant, they could not contact the complainant/respondent. They have sent various letters to complainant so as to settle his insurance claim, but due to incorrect address, letters returned back. The Insurance Company could not contact the complainant; the claim of the complainant could not be materialized.
5. Today, before the State Commission, the learned counsel for the appellant also argued that due to not supplying necessary documents, the claim of the complainant has not been settled. The Counsel for appellant stated that they have not repudiated the claim of complainant and even though the claim was not repudiated, the complainant filed his complaint before the District Forum. We clarify that even though claim is not repudiated, the complainant could have filed his complaint. This type of defense is only taken by the insurance company for the purpose to harass the complainant-consumer.
6. After filing of the complaint before the District Forum, the appellant have been served. They have also filed their written version. Therefore, it is/was possible for the appellant to seek direction from the District Forum to ask the complainant to submit necessary documents/papers. But the appellant did not do the same. However, this is not a time to ask the complainant to file necessary document for settlement of his claim. The statement made by the Counsel for appellant that the address of the complainant was not correct and hence, they could not settle the claim of complainant, is improper.
7. At last, after appearing in the District Forum, the appellant should have settled the claim of complainant with the documents available on record. However, for the best reasons known to the appellant, it can not settle the claim of complainant. We asked the Counsel for appellant, whether there is any dispute regarding the theft of the complainant’s vehicle. She replied “No”. We again asked her, whether there is any dispute regarding investigation carried out by the police. She again replied “No”. The counsel for the appellant only tried to make out that, the insurance company has not investigated the matter and therefore, the claim of the complainant has not been settled.
8. In case of theft, the police have investigated the matter and submitted their report. It is not necessary to investigate the theft matter by the surveyor of the insurance company. In case of vehicle’s accidental matter, the investigation through surveyor of the insurance company will be helpful and necessary. It is not the case of insurance company that theft has not taken place. In such case, how and in what manner surveyor’s report is helpful is not known to us and Learned Counsel is also unable to explain us in this respect. However, the insurance company is interested in killing the time to settle the claim of complainant.
9. We find that, District Forum has rightly considered the liability and not only that it appears that depreciation to that extent of 10% is also allowed. At this stage, the insurance company should have accepted the claim and should have made the payment, but in spite of doing so, insurance company filed the said appeal so as to harass the complainant/respondent. The complainant/respondent had purchased the vehicle by taking loan from H.D.F.C. Bank and paid the interest towards the loan amount. Therefore we take a serious action against the appellant and impose cost of `10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to complainant in addition to the amounts directed by District Forum. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.
Pronounced
Dated 22nd December 2010
