Haryana

Karnal

CC/684/2021

Darshan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA ATG General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Arora

14 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.684 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt. 07.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:14.06.2024

 

Darshan Lal son of Shri Chela Ram, resident of house no.1574, sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal, aged about 59 years. Aadhar no.6789 5444 6675.

                                                                   …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO no.254, First floor Sector-12, Part-I, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Satish Arora, 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 the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of Motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05AG-2457 make splender Pro. (Black) which was insured with the OP, vide policy no.3191622666, valid from 17.02.2020 to 16.02.2021. The insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.18448/-. On 01.12.2020 at about 6.00 p.m. the said motorcycle was stolen while it was parked in front of Ram Mandir, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal qua which an FIR no.625 dated 02.12.2020 in Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal under section 379 IPC was registered. At the time of stolen of the vehicle, the close relative of the complainant namely Harsh Dev Mehta was using the vehicle. Immediately, the intimation was given to the Police regarding the said incident and requested to trace out the same but police could not trace the same. Complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim. Complainant waited for two months but OP did not paid the insured amount of said vehicle. Complainant requested the OP several times for settling the claim but OP did not bother to settle the same. Lateron, on 17.02.2021, OP sent a letter to the complainant vide which it was stated that company has appointed M/s IAR Service for verification and investigation of the report that Darshan Lal had sold the vehicle to Mr. Harsh Dev Mehta and further vehicle registration and vehicle insurance has not been transferred and asked for reply of same whereas complainant never sold his vehicle to anyone. The denial of the claim is only based on the presumption and assumption. 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 no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that Mr. Darshal Lal had taken policy no.3191622666, valid from 17.02.2020 to 16.02.2021 for the insured declared value of Rs.18448/- , covering risk of vehicle no.HR-05A-2457. The insured vehicle was allegedly stolen on 01.12.2020. After getting intimation regarding alleged loss, the OP immediately appointed an independent investigator, M/s IAR Services Pvt. Ltd. to investigate the matter and collect the documents, who after thorough investigation and collection of documents submitted its detailed report to OP. After receiving the documents and report, it was noted that as per FIR, filed by Mr. Harash Mehta the vehicle was purchased by Mr. Harash Mehta from Mr. Darshan Lal one year ago which was stolen. In the present case, Mr. Harash Mehta purchaser of the alleged vehicle, the transferee of the subject vehicle failed to apply for transfer of the insurance policy within 14 days, and further, the complainant/insured was left with no insurable interest in the subject vehicle, the present claim was not payable and accordingly, the same was rightly repudiated by the OP. There is no deficiency in service 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 aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle Ex.C2, copy of vehicle detail of the theft Ex.C3, copy of insurance policy Ex.C4, copy of request letter dated 07.12.2020 Ex.C5, copy of intimation letter dated 02.12.2020 by OP to complainant Ex.C6, copy of query letter Ex.C7, copy of FIR Ex.C8, copy of letter dated 17.02.2021 by OP to complainant Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 02.05.2023 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, affidavit of Manu Mehta proprietor Ex.RW2/A, copy of investigation report Ex.R1, copy of FIR Ex.R2, copies of letters dated 02.02.2020, 17.02.2021 and 05.03.2021 Ex.R3 to Ex.R5, copy of insurance policy Ex.R6 and closed the evidence on 12.03.2024 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 complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his vehicle with the OP. On 01.12.2020, the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person. An FIR no.625 dated 02.12.2020 was lodged with the concerned Police Station. Complainant lodged the claim with the OP and also submitted all the required documents but OP did not settle the claim of complainant and repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had sold the vehicle prior to theft to one Harsh Dev Mehta. So, the complainant has no insurable interest at the time of theft. Thus, the claim of the complainant has rightly been 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, during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.18,448/-.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide letter Ex.R5 dated 05.03.2021 on the ground, the relevant portion of the said letter is produced as under:-

On goring through the claim documents (FIR), it was observed that Mr. Darshan Lal had sold the vehicle to Mr.Harsh Dev Mehta. Further, it was observed that vehicle registration & Vehicle policy was not transferred in the name of new owner within stipulated time. In this instance General Regulation 17 of All India Motor Tariff stands violated.

Therefore, we are unable to entertain this claim.”

 

12.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the abovesaid ground. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OP, but OP has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The registration certificate of the vehicle Ex.C2 and insurance policy Ex.C4 are in the name of complainant and this fact has not been denied by the OP. Only lodging the FIR by a third person claiming himself as an owner not proved that he is owner of the vehicle. Hence, it has been proved on file that at the time of theft, the complainant was owner of the vehicle in question. Hence, plea taken by the OP with regard to sale of vehicle in question has no force.

13.           For the sake of gravity, if it is presumed that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in that eventuality, the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated in toto.  In this regard, we relied upon the case laws cited in Revision Petition no.1870 of 2015(NC) decided on 14.08.2018 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Thirath Singh Brar and authority of our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal.  In both judgments it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis.

14.           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”.

15.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid authorities and the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while denying the claim of the complainant in toto. Hence, complainant is entitled to get 75% of the admissible claim on non-standard basis.

16.           As per insurance policy Ex.C4/R6, the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.18,448/-. Hence, complainant is entitled for Rs.13,836/- i.e. 75% of the IDV alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and towards the litigation expense.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.13,836/- (Rs. thirteen thousand eight hundred thirty six only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 05.03.2021 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to complete all the formalities with regard to cancellation of the RC of the vehicle in question. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.06.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Suman Singh)

  Member                   Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.