BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.:196 of 2014.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 18.07.2014.

                                                                      Date of Decision:13.12.2016

Smt. Rajbala wife of Jagpal, resident of village Milkpur, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.

                                                                       ….Complainant.

                                        Versus

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-1100034 through Managing Director.

                                                                      …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                  Mrs. Sudesh, Member

Present:-    Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.

       Shri Satender Ghangas, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that she is owner of vehicle Tractor Escorts bearing registration No. HR-16M/7254, Model 2013 and the same was insured with the respondent vide policy No. 0100753575, valid from 30.03.2013 to 29.03.2014 & she paid all the policy charges in the office of OP at the time of purchasing the policy.  It is alleged that on dated 18.10.2013, above said vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 18-19/101/2013 by unknown persons and FIR No. 345 dated 19.10.2013, under Section 380 IPC was got registered in P.S. Bawani Khera.  It is alleged that on next day i.e. on 19.10.2013 the complainant informed the respondent and submitted all the documents for the claim amount but the OP had not disbursed the claim amount of insurance of vehicle & have put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  It is alleged that she visited the office of the respondent time and again for obtaining the claim of her vehicle but OP did not pay any heed.  She also served a legal notice 22.05.2014.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, she had to suffer mental pain, humiliation and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such she had to file the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance,  OP  filed written statement alleging therein that the respondent company deputed an independent investigator for investigations into the theft of the tractor in question.  It is submitted that in the F.I.R. and final report the engine and chasis number of the tractor has not been mentioned.  It is submitted that the vehicle in question was supplied with two supplied with two start switch keys and two diesel tank lock keys.  It is submitted that the tractor in question was used by her for commercial purpose.  It is submitted that the lockset of the tractor got damaged during the usage and she made no efforts for getting the damaged lockset replaced.    Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R7.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 18-19.10.2013 by unknown person.  The FIR No. 345 dated 19.10.2013 was lodged under Section 380 IPC with the concerned police station and the complainant immediately informed the OP regarding the theft of this tractor and submitted the necessary documents for the payment of the claim.  The tractor was insured for a sum of Rs. 408500/- vide insurance policy Annexure R-5.  He submitted that the OP has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 08.05.2014 Annexure C-1.  Learned counsel for the complainant referred the following judgment:-

I         Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010] Acc. C.R. 594 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

7.                 Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that on the receipt of the intimation of the theft of the tractor in question, the OP deputed independent investigator, who submitted his report dated 12.03.2014, which is Annexure R-2, R-3 & R-4.  He submitted that as per the statement of the complainant recorded by the investigator, the lock set of the tractor was got damaged and when the same was not replaced and the keys of the tractor were also got misplaced and it was being started by the driver without keys.  He further submitted that the complainant has not taken due care for her tractor in question.  The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence no claim is payable to the complainant.  Learned counsel for the OP referred the following judgment:-

I         Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus K.K. Valsalan III (2014) CPJ 201 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

II        Paramjit Kaur Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2014) CPJ 164 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

III       United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus East Indian Produce Ltd. & Ors. in First Appeal of 240 of 2010 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

IV       M/s Industrial Promotion & Investment Corporation Orissa Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 1130 of 2007 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

8.                 In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on the file.  The theft of the tractor in question is not denied by the OP.  The untrace report of the vehicle  in question has also been obtained by the complainant.  The complainant has obtained the comprehensive policy for the tractor in question.  According to the insurance policy the company is liable to indemnify the loss caused to the insurer.  The counsel for the OP has contended that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the claim of the complainant ought to be settled on non standard basis by the OP.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to settle and pay the claim of the complainant at 75% of the insured amount to the complainant.  The complainant is also directed to submit the letter of subrogation etc. to the company for the payment of her claim.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 13.12.2016.                     

      (Rajesh Jindal)                      

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                           (Sudesh)                    

                            Member