Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/11/2020

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sohanbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Nahar Adv.

03 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	11 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	09.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	03.12.2021

 

1. The General Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office A-25/25, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002.

 

2. The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.37, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.

Now both through their authorized signatory, Gurupdesh Kaur, Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Versus

1. Sohanbir Singh aged 59 years son of Kishan Chand, resident of House No.4879/2, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2. The Managing Director, HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013.
3. The Country Head Ravi Narayana – Vehicle Loan at HDFC Bank Ltd.,  HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013.
4. The Regional Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Auto Loans, Industrial Area, 28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties No.3 to 5.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by: (Through Video Conferencing)

 

Sh. J. P. Nahar, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. H. S. Kathpal, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 & 4. 

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 (appellants herein) against order dated 05.11.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh) (in short ‘the District Commission’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.526 of 2018 filed by the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was partly allowed against them vide which, the appellants were directed to pay the Insured Declared Value of Rs.51,831/- to respondent No.1 along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 25.01.2018 till payment besides payment of Rs.15,000/- & Rs.7,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost. The order was directed to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy. However, the complaint was dismissed against respondents No.2 to 4/opposite parties No.3 to 5.

2.             Briefly stated the fact are that the brand new Active Scooter of the complainant, which was insured with opposite parties No.1 & 2 under insurance policy, Annexure C-1 valid for the period 02.03.2017 to 01.03.2018, got stolen on 23.11.2017, while it was parked in side petrol pump, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. It was financed from HDFC Bank Ltd. Complaint with SSP, Chandigarh was reported on 25.11.2017 and FIR was got registered on 11.06.2018. Claim was lodged with the appellants but they did not settle the same. When opposite parties No.3 & 4 filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant for dishonor of cheques, he filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.

3.             On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 & 2 contested the claim on the ground that there was delay of 8 days in intimation of the theft and the complainant failed to submit FIR with intimation letter.  It was stated that the complainant also failed to complete the formalities and in repudiation letter dated 25.01.2018, he was given last opportunity, so that claim could be processed and passed but he failed to do so.

4.             However, opposite party No.3 stated that against the sanctioned loan of Rs.51,764/-, still an amount of Rs.59,394/- outstanding and the foreclosure amount payable by the complainant is Rs.65,436/-. It was stated that the complainant paid only two installments and all other ECS/cheques have been dishonoured and as such, complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed against him.

5.             The parties led evidence in support of their case.

6.             The District Commission after hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record partly allowed the complaint against the appellants as stated above.

7.             After having given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case and written arguments, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

8.             The order has been impugned on two grounds, firstly, that FIR is the initial document, on which, the police conducts investigation and final report is submitted to the Court for further orders and it is very much necessary to demand copy of FIR from the claimant/insured and there is delay in intimation both to the police and the appellants. Secondly, it was stated that in the claim for theft of vehicle, the payment of claim amount is always subject to cancellation of hypothecation in the RC and the transfer of RC in the name of the Insurance Company, execution of subrogation and Indemnity Letter and handing over of both keys of the vehicle. Further an undertaking is given by the claimant that in case the vehicle is traced in future, it will be handed over to the insurance company as he has received the claim from the insurance Company. However, the District Commission did not pass any such direction which amounted to double benefit to the complainant.

9.             So far as the contentions raised by the appellants are concerned, it may be stated here that  in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singhal, IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that "There has been catena of decisions of the National Commission and also Hon'ble Apex Court and the issue is no longer res integra that in case of theft of vehicle, issue of breach of policy condition(s) was not germane to the issue and we profitably refer to few decisions of the National Commission in the matters of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. J.P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., (R.P No.643 / 2005), (2) Punjab Chemical Agency v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (R.P. No.2097), (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sou. Bahrati Rajiv Bankar, (RP No.3294 / 2009) and (4) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jeetmal, (RP No.3366/2009). There has been a landmark judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further "the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.” Not only this, the District Commission also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma & Another, C.W.P. No.9716 of 2011 decided on 30.05.2011 wherein it was observed that “…..Merely because there was delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim….”. As per repudiation letter dated 25.01.2018, Annexure P-7, the sole ground, on which, claim was held to be not admissible was for want of copy of F.I.R and one more opportunity was given to the complainant as last one to submit the same. We endorse the view held by the District Commission that had the authorities acted promptly on the complaint made online about theft of scooter, then, his claim for insurance would have timely been decided by the opposite parties. It was only with the indulgence of the higher authorities, FIR got recorded later on. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellants in this regards stands rejected.

10.           So far as their next contention qua wrongly ordering refund of the Insured Declared Value to the complainant as it was the right of the HDFC Bank to have first charge on the amount which had financed the vehicle, in question, is concerned, it may be stated here that we have minutely gone through the written statement filed by opposite parties No.3 to 5 before the District Commission and nowhere in their reply, they have said so or racked up this controversy. It was for the Bank to say so, which has not come in appeal as the complaint has already been dismissed against them. Moreover, in their reply, Bank has specifically stated in Para 7 that they have nothing to do with the Insurance Claim of the complainant and they had provided loan to the complainant, which he is liable to pay in any circumstances, for which, the Bank has already filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant. In this view of the matter, the District Commission has rightly ordered payment of the Insured Declared Value in favour of the complainant and dismissed the complaint against opposite parties No.3 to 5. Therefore, this contention raised by the appellants stands rejected.

11.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 is dismissed being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs. However, the impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh in consumer complaint No.526 of 2018 is upheld.  

12.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

03.12.2021.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad