Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 115.
Instituted on : 08.03.2019.
Decided on : 07.08.2019.
Sumit Hooda age 27 years, s/o Sh. Suresh R/o H.No.2098, Sector-3, Rohtak. .
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., Having its registered office at Peninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15th Floor, G.K.Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its Manager.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 through its Manager/Authorized signatory.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Narayan Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ram Mehar Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of a vehicle, Water Tanker make SFC-709 bearing registration No.HR-58A-7013, which was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 015726081000 for a sum of Rs.700000/- for the period from 05.07.2017 to 04.07.2018. That on 09.12.2017 the complainant got his vehicle parked at Mastnath Nagar(Baba Builders), Rohtak and properly locked the vehicle. That in the intervening night of 9-10.12.2017, his vehicle was got stolen by some unknown persons. That complainant tried his level best to trace the vehicle and gave information to the concerned police and a case FIR No.513 dated 10.12.2017 was got registered in P.S.Urban Estate Rohtak. . That complainant also gave intimation to the opposite party in time. That the police filed a untraced report in the Court on 18.05.2018. That complainant applied for getting the insurance claim and handed over all the relevant documents to the opposite parties. But after submission of all the documents, the surveyor raised objections that the ignition keys of the tanker are not original. Upon which, the complainant intimated that the locks of the tanker were changed by “Shiv Shanker Motors” Hissar Road, Rohtak in May 2017 as they were not working properly due to ageing effect and a certificate in this regard issued by Shiv Shankar Motors was also furnished to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties declined the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 31.05.2018 on the ground that the vehicle got stolen alongwith the original ignition key. That the act of opposite parties of repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.700000/- as IDV of vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its accrual till realization, Rs.200,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause, to the complainant.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the theft had taken place in the intervening night of 9/10-12-17 and on receiving the claim intimation regarding the loss on 12.02.2017, answering respondent registered the claim of the complainant and appointed an independent investigator to get the matter investigated. The Investigator submitted his detailed report, wherein it came to the knowledge that insured provided two keys of the canter, one key was fresh and other key was rubbed with some external source and thus the investigator served letter seeking explanation of the same. The insured clarified the factum stating that he got the lock set changed and was using one key and other key was un-used. The explanation given by the insured was not satisfactory. Hence the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on 31.05.2018, duly served to the complainant. That the information about the theft was given to the insurance company after unexplained delay of 6 days of theft, which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.05.2019. Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.07.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 31.05.2018 placed on record as Ex.C8 on the ground that insured provided two keys of the canter, one key was fresh and other key was finely scratched so that it looks like a used one. Thus they believed that the vehicle got stolen alongwith the original ignition key at its ignition point. The investigator served letter seeking explanation of the same. The complainant replied the same vide letter Ex.C9 regarding changing of locks of vehicle, but as per the opposite parties, explanation given by the insured was not satisfactory. Hence the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties. The other plea taken by the opposite parties in their written reply is that the intimation of theft was given after 6 days of theft.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that regarding changing of locks, complainant has placed on record copy of a statement given by one Jai Bhagwan , owner of Shiv Shankar Motor, Hissar Road, Rohtak, as per which he changed the locks of the alleged vehicle, as the same were not working properly being old one. Hence the plea taken by the opposite parties is not tenable. Regarding the delayed intimation to the opposite parties, it is observed that the theft had taken place in the intervening night of 09-10.12.2017 and the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. on 10.12.2017. That the main stress for giving immediate information to the company or to the police is only with regard to conducting investigation of the case to know, as to whether the theft of the vehicle actually took place or not and to ensure conviction to the offender. In the case in hand, no prejudice has been caused to the insurance company as the police was immediately informed about the theft of the vehicle and as per letter Ex.R3, the insurance company was also intimated on 15.12.2017 i.e. only after 5 days of theft. We have also placed reliance upon the authorities cited by ld. counsel for the complainant, in 2015(3)CPJ99 titled as Shriram General Insruance Co. Vs. Manoj, decided by Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula, 2015(1)CPJ 16 decided by Hon’ble SCDRC, Chhatisgarh Raipur, titled as Sumit Aggarwal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2017(2)CLT84 by Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in case titled as UIIC Vs. Bhundu Ram and Raj Pal etc. We have also placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 20.09.2018 titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is observed that the act of opposite parties of repudiating the genuine claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay the IDV of the vehicle as shown in policy schedule Ex.C2 i.e. Rs.700000/-(Rupees seven lac only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.03.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.08.2019.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
