Hon'ble, Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The instant petition of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reveals that he had purchased one vehicle bearing No. WB 76 9993(M Bolero Pick up Van 4) for his livelihood. He bought this old M & M Bolero Pick Up and the said vehicle was duly registered under the Registering Authority, Darjeeling. The Complainant also got his vehicle insured with the OP. The insurance policy (Annexure-T) was issued vide policy No.153901/31/14/6300004744 for the period from 02.10.14 to midnight of 01.10.2015. The said vehicle was stolen from the garage on the intervening night between 31.12.14 and 01.01.15 from Sahab Pata, Shilbarihat within PS Alipurduar. The Complainant forthwith went to Alipurduar PS and filed FIR vide Alipurduar PS case No. 05/15 dated 04.01.15 under section 461/379 IPC which was later registered as GR case No.43/15 of LD. ACJM-II Alipurduar. Subsequently, the Complainant also informed the OP on 23.04.18 in writing and submitted his claim before the OP for settlement. The OP sent one Investigator who during enquiry, through his letter dated 19.07.15 requested the Complainant to submit the claim form, certified copy of RC of the vehicle, tax token, fitness permit, Ignition key 2 nos, Receipt of FIR to the Policy Authority, receipt of letter to the Motor Registering Authority, the final report (FRT) from the Court of Magistrate, RTO form No., original policy and certificate of insurance to the OP. Thereafter on 31.08.15 the OP Company further sent one reminder for submitting the same documents at an earliest. Then Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 and informed him that one Ignition key was seized by the Police Authority and the other has been lost somewhere in his house for which he made search in his house but could not trace. The Complainant being a villager, out of confusion, also took one key of same type with him to O.P. No.1 to be confirmed whether the key was the same lost key. But taking the opportunity of such simplicity of the Complainant, O.P. No.1 took some undertaking from him and also issued a letter dated 04.01.16 to that respect. The Complainant ultimately submitted the claim from, Registration certificate(with certified copy) of the vehicle, tax token, fitness certificate, receipt of FIR to the police authority, receipt of letter to the Motor Registering Authority(MVI Department), final report(FRT) RTO form No.28,29 & 30 letter of subrogation, original policy and certificate of insurance. A letter addressed to the O.P. No.1 requesting to accept the only key of the vehicle and to disburse the insurance claim of his lost vehicle was sent.The OP company vide their letter dated 07.10.16 asked the Complainant to submit the ignition key of the stolen vehicle and a certified copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the Govt. of Nagaland as the vehicle was previously registered with Registration No. as NL 08A 7304. The ignition key of the stolen vehicle was lost which was duly informed to the OP and the vehicle, at the time of theft was registered with the Registering Authority Darjeeling. After lapse of time, the OP did not settle the claim following the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The Complainant also sent two notices to the O.Ps through his Ld. Advocate dated 23.04.18 and both were served upon the O.Ps. Finally, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that only one key of the vehicle was submitted by the Complainant.
According to the Complainant, the act of the OP is illegal and there is gross deficiency in service on their part. So the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP to pay the policy amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- for cost of proceedings.
The OP contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. It was admitted on behalf of the OP that the said vehicle was duly insured with them.
Despite repeated demands, the Complainant did not hand over the original ignition key to the OP. According to them, the vehicle in question was stolen from the garage with original ignition key in order to promote the incident of the theft. In addition, the Complainant did not supply the certified copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the Govt. of Nagaland as the vehicle was previously registered in Nagaland. It is the negligence on the part of the Complainant. OP denied the allegation made against them and prayed for dismissal of instant case.
The pleadings of the parties led this Commission to determine the following points for determination to ascertain the real question in controversy.
Points for determination
- Is the instant case maintainable?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief?
- To what other relief, if any Complainant is entitled?
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration.
Both the parties are found to have filed documents as Annexures. On going through the complaint, written version of the parties, evidence, documents and also the written argument we find that the Complainant’s vehicle, which is said to have been stolen, was duly registered in his name and the same was also insured with the OP.
According to the Complainant on the alleged date of incident the said vehicle was stolen from the garage on the intervening night between 31.12.14 and 01.01.15 from Shab Pata, Shilbarihat within PS Alipurduar. The Complainant immediately went to Alipurduar and lodged a written complaint with Alipuduar PS vide Alipurduar PS case No.05/15 dated 04.01.15 under section 461/379 IPC which was later registered as GR case No.43/15 of the Court of Ld. ACJM-II, Alipurduar.
We also find that the information of the said incident was given in writing to the OP insurance Company on 08.01.15. The panel investigator of the OP was appointed who investigated the case. Then OP Company requested to submit some documents through their letter dated 19.07.15. As per the said incident the Complainant finally lodged one FIR with Alipurduar PS on 04.01.15 under section 461/379 IPC which was later registered as GR case No.43/15 of the Court of Ld. ACJM-II Alipurduar. The police ultimately filed their FRT being FRT No.186/15 dated 30.04.15.
The GR case which was registered in ACJM-II Alipurduar finally treated as FRT which is clear that the vehicle was stolen on the alleged date.
On behalf of the Complainant, it was argued that as it is clear about the theft of the vehicle and that too, during the validity of the insurance policy the Complainant who had taken the policy from OP insurance Company by paying premium is unable to get his claim settled by OP insurance Company. But the OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and there was deficiency in service on their part.
Accusing the Complainant of violating the terms and conditions of insurance policy, it was alleged on behalf of the OP insurance Company that, firstly, some documents were not filed by the Complainant within a period to the insurance Company and intimation to the insurance Company was delayed and complaint to the Alipurduar PS were not true about the alleged theft of the vehicle thereby depriving the insurance Company of its legitimate right to inquire into the alleged incident and recovery of the vehicle.
Secondly, Complainant failed to hand over the ignition key despite several requests in order to settle his claim. Thirdly, the Complainant had left the vehicle in an unsafe manner and the second ignition key could not be traced out due to wilful negligence on the part of Complainant himself. The OP also wanted to the previous Registration Certificate issued by the Govt. of Nagaland to be submitted by the Complainant as the vehicle was previously registered in Nagaland. So, the OP argued that the repudiation of claim was legal.
So far as the first argument of the OP about the document, is concerned this Commission finds that the vehicle is 2nd hand car. Previously it was registered under Nagaland but when this owner purchased the vehicle the said vehicle was duly registered under the Registering Authority, Darjeeling and the said vehicle was properly insured with the OP Company. So we do not find any ambiguity of the registration. This apart the vehicle was in garage where the theft was happened. In as much as FIR was lodged under Alipurduar PS so undoubtedly it is under the jurisdiction of same PS. On the basis of the investigation and the police report his vehicle was stolen from Alipurduar PS, District- Alipurduar. The police failed to recover the vehicle and submitted final report accordingly.
We have gone through the decisions referred to on behalf of the parties.
It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in 2014 CJ 411(NC) and 2014 CJ 565(NC) that if reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. Here, in this case this Commission has already held that there is absolutely no delay in the matter of reporting this case of theft. In another case also referred to by OP 2015 CJ 717(NC) of Hon’ble Apex Court in connection that Complainant has not come to Commission with clean hand.
It has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission in a number of cases that in case of violation of condition of the policy, the claim ought to be settled on a non standard basis. Here in this case OP alleged that there was violation of terms and conditions on the part of the Complainant and one key was not produced by the Complainant despite repeated demands.
It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017 referred to by the complaint that it is common knowledge that a person who loses his vehicle may not straight way go to the insurance Company to claim compensation. 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 holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
So, considering the discussions made herein above we find that the vehicle was duly insured with the OP and the coverage of insurance policy existed on the date when the alleged theft of the vehicle took place. Here in this case, the insurance declared value is Rs.3 Lakhs. Here in this case Complainant is entitled to get monetary relief to the tune of Rs.3 Lakhs.
With this, all the issues are disposed of.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three Lakhs) only to the Complainant towards insurance for theft of the vehicle bearing No. WB-76-9993.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP is directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order. If the aforesaid amount is not paid within stipulated time, the OP is liable to pay interest @ 6 % per annum on the awarded sum until realization and the Complainant shall also be at liberty to execute the same through due process of law.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
