Haryana

Karnal

CC/574/2021

Gurnam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

12 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.574 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.13.10.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:12.10.2023

 

Gurnam aged 45 years, son of Shri Lachhman, resident of village Beer Majri, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. (Aadhar no.3552 6347 1147).

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, second floor, Narayan Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by:  Shri S.S.Moonak, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of the motorcycle (splendor) bearing RC no.HR-75-C-7012 (model 2019). The same was insured with the OP, vide its policy no.3191126400/000000/00, valid from 18.11.2019 to 17.11.2024. The IDV of the motorcycle was Rs.51,101/-. The policy was package/comprehensive. The complainant was using the said motorcycle for his personal needs and necessity. On 28.04.2020, complainant had gone to Civil Hospital, Indri on his motorcycle from his house for taking medicine for his mother. After locking the motorcycle properly there, complainant went inside the said hospital to do the needful. After one hour when he came out, the motorcycle was not found there. The complainant tried to search the motorcycle, but no clue was found. The motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person alongwith original documents. Thereafter, complainant reported the matter to the police of Police Station Indri, Karnal and an FIR No.148/2020, under section 379 IPC was registered in this regard. The matter was also reported in the office of OP through email as well as telephonically through the Agency at Indri, from where the motorcycle was purchased. All the relevant documents, claim form etc. were submitted to the OP. Thereafter, OP and the investigator visited the place of occurrence as well as the matter was investigated by the local police, the claim of the complainant was kept pending by the OP without any rhyme and reason despite the fact that the complainant has completed all the formalities regarding the settlement of claim but no response has been given from the side of the OP. Ultimately, OP issued a letter dated 31.08.2020, vide which OP declared the claim of complainant as No Claim on the false and flimsy grounds. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that there is 9 days delay in intimating to the OP. The theft of the vehicle occurred on 28.04.2020 and intimation to OP was sent by the complainant on 07.05.2020. On receipt of intimation,  OP appointed an independent investigator to investigate the matter. After receipt of the investigation report, the OP sent a letter dated 17.08.2020 and 24.08.2020 requesting for submission of following documents and requested the complainant to provide following requisition documents:-

        . RTO intimation letter for keeping vehicle file in safe custody.

        . Non-repossession letter and latest loan account statement of

   the vehicle from financer.

. Final untrace report of the vehicle u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

. You had submitted one fresh/unused key and did not submit

   the 2^nd original key, please clarify.

But applicant neither provide required documents/information nor replied letter, perforce from the office of OP sent letters dated 17.08.2020 and 24.08.2020 for providing the said documents. Left with no option, OP closed the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 31.08.2020. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C4, copy of repudiation letter dated 31.08.2020 Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 13.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Chawla Ex.RW1/A, copy of claim notification sheet Ex.R1, copy of claim form Ex.R2, copy of letters dated 17.08.2020, 24.08.2020 and 31.08.2020 Ex.R3 to Ex.R5, copy of insurance policy Ex.R6 and closed the evidence on 18.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 6.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got his vehicle insured with the OP. On 28.04.2020, the vehicle of complainant was stolen and in this regard an FIR no.148 dated 29.04.2020, under section 379 of IPC was got registered with Police Station, Indri, Karnal. The intimation was sent to the OP. On 21.06.2020, the police submitted the untrace report. Complainant submitted all the documents alongwith the untrace report with the OP and requested to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim and repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the theft of the vehicle was occurred on 28.04.2020 and FIR no.148 dated 29.04.2020 was got lodged by the complainant after delay of one day and intimation was given to the OP on 07.05.2020 i.e. after inordinate delay of nine days. Upon receiving belated intimation of theft, OP appointed a surveyor to investigate the alleged theft. But complainant neither submitted the required documents nor cooperate the investigator. Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant got insured his vehicle with the OP. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle in question is Rs.51,101/-.

 11.          The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide letter Ex.C5/Ex.R5 dated 31.08.2020 on the grounds, which are reproduced as under:-

“We invite reference to your claim for the above vehicle and our earlier letter dated 17.08.2020 and 24.08.2020, we had appointed IAR Group for verification of fact in the subject matter. We would again like you to furnish the following/justification,

. RTO intimation letter for keeping vehicle file in safe custody.

. Non-repossession letter and latest loan account statement of  the vehicle from financer.

. Final untrace report of the vehicle u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

. You had submitted one fresh/unused key and did not submit   the 2^nd original key, please clarify.

We invite your attention in this instance policy condition no.1 read in conjunction with policy condition no.8 stands violated.

We are sorry to note that, we had not received any revert from your end after sending the reminder letters. Hence, we are closing the case at our end”.

 

 12.          OP has alleged that complainant had not submitted the required documents.. The most of the queries raised by the OP are irrelevant and there is no legal hitch to decide the claim without the said documents. Complainant has already supplied the possible documents. Complainant has placed on file copy of final report u/s 173Cr.P.C. Ex.C4. When the complainant has placed on file, the copy of said document, there is no reason for not supplying the same to the OP. Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such huge amount why he will not supply the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigation. Hence, in view of the above, we find no substance in this contention of the OP.

13.           The next plea taken by the OP is that complainant had submitted one fresh/unused key and did not submit the 2^nd original key. As per the version of the complainant, one original key has already been given to the surveyor of the OP and second key has already been misplaced. Hence, the plea taken by the OP has no force.

14.           There is only one day delay in lodging the FIR and nine days delay of intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question by the complainant to the OP. In the present complaint, vehicle in question was stolen on 28.04.2020 and complainant alleged that he had immediately intimated to the police and but police lodged the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.C3 on next day i.e. 29.04.2023. Generally, the owner/Driver of the vehicle first tries to search the vehicle at his own level, but when he fails to trace out the same, the matter is reported to the police. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the police does not register the FIR immediately after getting information of theft of any vehicle, either the complainant is asked to trace out the vehicle at his own level or efforts are made by the police for searching the vehicle, but when the vehicle is not traced out, then only the FIR is registered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the case titled as Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and anr. in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.11 of the said judgment, that it is a common knowledge that a person who has lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holder in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We also placed reliance upon the judgment in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co. in Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.20 of the said judgment has held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. The similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dharamnder Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others in civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 date of decision 13.09.2021 and Jatin Construction Company Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. in Civil Apeal no.1069 of 2022 date of decision 11.02.2022.

15.            Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

16.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved genuine one.

17.          As per insurance policy Ex.R6, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.51,101/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith interest, compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses etc.

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.51,101/- (Rs.fifty one thousand one hundred one only) as insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 31.08.2020 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to get all the formalities completed with regard to cancellation of the RC of the vehicle in question as and when the OP desire. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.10.2023.

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal

                (Vineet Kaushik)       

                      Member