STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 15.09.2017
Date of final hearing: 20.11.2023
Date of pronouncement: 26.12.2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 572 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Sh. Usman S/o Jhuroodin, R/o Village Tapkan, The-Nuh, District Mewat (Haryana). …..Complainant
Versus
- M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 301-308, III Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No. 2, Road No. 44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 through its Branch Manager.
- M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., at Registered Office Peninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its Manager.
- M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.6, 2nd Floor, SCO Complex (Near Axis Bank), Near Payal Cinema, Sector-14, Gurugram-122002 through its Branch Manager.
…..Opposite Parties
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Amardeep Hooda, counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Facts are: Complainant’s vehicle No. HR55M-5399 was insured with OPs vide certificate and policy No.010074457800 valid from 28.03.2013 to 19.03.2014. Premium of Rs.35,401/- was paid by complainant. Vehicle was financed with Sundaram Finance Ltd. On 12.03.2014 at about 05:00 pm, driver of vehicle namely: Mohd. Imran had parked it on Meoli Road, Near Hidayat Colony, Nuh by locking and went for food at his house. He came back at 06:00 pm and found that vehicle was not there. Complaint was given to police on same day but police did not take any action. Complainant filed complaint in Court of CJM-Nuh, Mewat for registration of FIR for sending it under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. FIR No. 172 dated 14.03.2014 was registered on the direction of learned CJM Court-Nuh. Police investigated and submitted untraced report.
2. During this process, OPs sent letter dated 21.10.2014 (Note: this is the repudiation letter) to complainant with observation that: no cooperation was extended to appointed investigator. It is pleaded that complainant did not receive any communication regarding appointment of investigator. He never stated that he had not keys of vehicle with him and same were lost with vehicle. He sent representation dated 22.05.2017 to OP No. 1 by submitting that: he is ready to submit keys of vehicle, which are with him and to reconsider his claim. Reminder dated 24.08.2017 in reference to letter dated 22.05.2017 was also sent to OP No. 1 for settlement of claim of lost vehicle. Complainant has also paid payment of full settlement of loan to financer who has issued NOC vide letter dated 23.11.2016. It is prayed in the complaint that directions be issued to OPs to consider the claim of claimant and give insured amount of vehicle i.e. Rs.18,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment/agony with interest @15% p.a. till realization and also pay him litigation charges of Rs.50,000/-.
3. OPs, in their defense have stated that: there is no deficiency in their service. OPs received intimation regarding theft at its call center on 14.03.2014 at 08:13 pm, whereas vehicle in question was allegedly stolen on 12.03.02014 at 05:30 pm. FIR regarding theft was lodged after delay on two days on 14.03.2014. On receipt of intimation regarding theft; investigator namely Sh. Vikas Kumar of Vikas Kumar & Associates was appointed to investigate the claim. Investigator wrote two letters through regd. post to complainant to submit necessary documents which were not submitted by him. In absence of required documents from complainant; investigator submitted his report dated 14.08.2014. He specifically noted therein that necessary documents were not supplied by complainant. On 09.08.2014, representative of investigator went to meet complainant at his residence and complainant refused to meet him. Complainant was sent a show cause notice dated 10.09.2014 by OPs, in which, he was required to clarify for not extending corporation to investigator for investigation into the matter and for not providing necessary documents. Complainant failed to give any explanation to show cause notice and his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 21.10.2014. It is admitted that complainant got his vehicle No. HR55M-5399 insured with OPs under insurance policy No. 010074457800 valid from 28.03.2013 to 19.03.2014. Vehicle in question is a commercial one; same was bought for doing commercial activities and as such complainant is not a consumer. It is pleaded that in the repudiation letter dated 21.10.2014; OPs stated to complainant that he has violated policy conditions No. 1 & 5 as complainant has stated in his handwritten statement dated 22.03.2014 confirming loss of keys along with vehicle. It is pleaded that keys of vehicle were not provided to OPs. It is also pleaded that despite repeated assurances; complainant did not submit requisite documents with OPs. Inter alia on these pleas; dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
4. Parties to this lis; led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. Complainant-Usman, while appearing as CW-1, got recorded his statement on oath on 27.08.2018 thereby endorsing the text of his complaint. In support of his statement, he tendered his duly sworn affidavit and also relied upon documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence on 27.08.2018. On behalf of OPs; duly sworn affidavit Ex.OPW-1/A of Sh. Sanjay Bhagat-Vice President of OPs was tendered in evidence. OPs also relied upon documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-9 and learned counsel for OPs closed the evidence through statement dated 01.10.2019 of its counsel Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate.
5. Arguments in complaint were addressed by learned counsel appearing for both parties on 20.11.2023.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has urged that complainant would feel satisfied; if direction is issued to OPs to reconsider his claim within parameters of insurance policy and in that arena complainant would extend his cooperation to insurer/OPs and submit desired documents, in furtherance to reprocessing of his theft claim.
7. Learned counsel for OPs have urged that though claim of complainant has already been repudiated by OPs vide its letter dated 21.10.2014 (admitted as such by complainant in his complaint), still OPs would reconsider complainant’s theft claim if he (complainant) submit necessary documents required for reprocessing the same.
8. In wake of above position so put across; this Commission is of opinion that generous and customer friendly approach has been reflected by OPs towards complainant to reconsider his claim despite that it has already repudiated complainant’s theft claim earlier, vide its letter dated 21.10.2014 and admitted as such by complainant. This being so, this Commission does not intend to go into merits and demerits of this complaint by critically and subjectively analyzing the rival evidence led by both parties. Since, OPs have projected to reconsider and reprocess the claim of complainant, therefore, its repudiation letter dated 21.10.2014 is hereby set aside. Right at this moment this Commission refrains itself from passing any consequential direction, post setting aside the repudiation letter dated 21.10.2014 as OPs have shown its intention to reprocess and reconsider the theft claim of complainant.
9. As a corollary so flowing, direction is hereby issued to complainant to submit documents so desired by OPs in furtherance to reprocessing and reconsidering of his theft claim, within parameters of insurance policy No. 010074457800 valid from 28.03.2013 to 19.03.2014, within a period of one month from today-the date of pronouncement of this order. Insurer/OPs would duly acknowledge to the complainant about receipt of documents by it. Thereafter, within a period of two months (after having received the desired documents from complainant); OPs/insurer would reprocess and reconsider the insured claim of theft of his vehicle No. HR55M-5399 within the scope and ambit of insurance policy mentioned above. With these observations, this complaint is disposed off being partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the repudiation letter dated 21.10.2014 issued by OPs only.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. Copy of this judgment be provided to parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 26th December, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
