Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/526/2018

Sohanbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anupam Bhanot Adv. & Brijesh Nandan Adv.

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	526 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	19.09.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	05.11.2019

 

 

 

 

Sohanbir Singh aged 59 years son of Kishan Chand, resident of House NO.4879/2, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh.   

 

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  The General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office A-25/25, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002

 

2]  The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.37, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.

 

3]  The Managing Director, HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013

 

4]  The Country Head Ravi Narayana – Vehicle Loan at HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400013

5]  The Regional Manager, HDFC bank Ltd., Auto Loans, Industrial Area, 28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

           

 

Argued By:

Sh.Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.Amit Kundra, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

Ms.Ramandeep Kaur, Adv. for OPs No.3 to 5.

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased Honda Activa Scooter bearing Engine No.6227947, Chassis No.232534, in year 2017, after getting it financed from HDFC Bank Limited and got it insured with OPs No.1 & 2 vide insurance policy Ann.C-1, which was valid from 2.3.2017 to 1.3.2018.  Unfortunately, the said scooter was stolen on 23.11.2017 while it was parked inside the Petrol Pump, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. It is averred that the complainant searched for his scooter, but it was not traced, so a complaint with SSP, Chandigarh was reported on 25.11.2017 and insurance company was also intimated.  However, the police registered FIR in the matter on 11.6.2018 vide FIR No.190 (Ann.P-2).  The complainant again lodged claim with the OPs No.1 & 2 in respect of his stolen insured scooter, but they did not settle it.  It is also stated that even Opposite Parties NO.3 to 4 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant for dishonur of cheques, which they have taken as security and surety.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the alleged theft had taken place on 23.11.2017 and intimation of the same was given to the company after 8 days of occurrence i.e. on 30.11.2017 and the complainant also failed to submit FIR with intimation letter. It is stated that the complainant was asked to complete the formalities and even in repudiation letter dated 25.1.2018, he had been provided the last opportunity, so that the company could process and pass his claim, but he failed to do so.  It is submitted that the claim could only be processed once the claim file is complete in all respects and the insured had been requested to supply the copy of the FIR so that his claim be processed, which he never provided to the insurance company. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.3 has also filed reply stating that the complainant had availed the loan of Rs.51,764/- from the answering Opposite Party to purchase the Honda Activa Scooter, but he failed to pay the loan and therefore, the outstanding amount towards him is Rs.59,394/- and the total foreclosure amount payable by the complainant is Rs.65,436/-.  It is stated that the answering Opposite Party has no role to play in repudiation of the claim of the complainant. It is also stated that only two installments of the complainant have been cleared and all other ECS/cheques issued by the complainant have been dishonoured (Ann.R-2).  It is submitted that the theft of the scooter of the complainant had no effect on the repayment of the loan.  It is also submitted that since the cheques issued by the complainant had been dishonoured, the complainant is guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party NO.3 to 5 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

3]       Replications have been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of Opposite Parties.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Record reveals that the Honda Activa Scooter of complainant bearing Engine No.6227947, Chassis No.232534, insured with OPs No.1 & 2 vide insurance policy Ann.C-1, effective from 2.3.2017 to 1.3.2018, got stolen on 23.11.2017, during currency of insurance cover.

 

7]       Undisputedly, the claim lodged by the complainant with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in respect of the said insured scooter, has been repudiated vide letter dated 25.1.2018 (An.P-7) for want of FIR in the case.

 

8]       The stand taken by the OPs No.1 & 2 for rejection of claim of the complainant is that neither he intimated the theft to the police or the insurance company within reasonable time nor he supplied the copy of FIR lodged with regard to theft of the insured scooter in question.

 

9]       We do not find any merit in the stand taken by the OPs.  Ann.P-11, dated 25.11.2017 is the copy of information, given by the complainant to the Chandigarh Police Authorities, with regard to missing/loss of his Activa Honda Scooter No.CH01BL5642. However, FIR in the matter has been recorded by the Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh only on 11.6.2018  (Annexure P-2).

 

10]      Annexure P-9 (complaint lodged by complainant on 15.12.2017 with SSP, Chandigarh) and Ann.P-10 (Summons issued by Police Post Sector 22, Chandigarh to joint enquiry), both reveals that it is only with the indulgence of the higher authorities, the FIR got recorded later on.  Had the authorities acted promptly on the complaint made Online about the stolen scooter, then his claim for insurance would have timely been decided by the Opposite Parties. 

         If the authorities did not show the promptness to take up the matter, then for their inaction, the complainant shall not be made to suffer, which in actual the complainant had to suffer for no fault on his part.

 

11]      From the documents, it is clear that there is no lapse on the part of the complainant and he has timely intimated the police authorities, who failed to show the promptness to lodge/record the FIR. The complainant in his complaint has claimed on oath that he duly supplied the copy of Online complaint made on 25.11.2017, while submitting the claim, but the Opposite Parties failed to consider the same and arbitrarily insisted for the copy of FIR, which otherwise is not the pre-requisite to settle the claim.  Neither, it is in the terms & conditions of the insurance policy issued by the OPs that the theft claim qua the insured vehicle shall be settled only once the complainant/insured  supplies the copy of FIR.  The only requirement of the policy terms & conditions is the timely intimation to the authorities or the insurance company, which the complainant duly complied. 

 

12]      It has been held in catena of judgments that insurance companies are not above the Investigating Agencies of the State i.e. Police Authorities and the intimation given to the police authorities has more value than the intimation given to the insurance company. 

         We are also guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh in case National Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma & Another, Civil Writ Petition No.9716 of 2011, decided on 30.5.2011 - Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, wherein it has been observed/held as under :-

“I have my doubts whether the Insurance Company can act as a super investigator once the complaint was lodged with the police about the theft. The responsibility to investigate or to ascertain the cause of theft or whether it was there or not would really be that of the police. Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim. Lok Adalat has rightly appreciated this aspect and has negated the plea raised by the petitioner Insurance company on the ground that the respondent- insured had immediately informed the police about the theft and hence the delay would be immaterial in such cases. The Insurance Companies, in my view, are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium. Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other….”

 

13]      For not settling the claim for more than a year and insisting the complainant to provide documents beyond his reach, the Opposite Parties certainly not only rendered deficient services towards the complainant, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the OPs No.1 & 2 have wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. 

 

14]      In view of the above discussion & findings, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the OPs No.1 & 2 have illegally & wrongly rejected the genuine claim of the complainant, which not only amounts to gross deficiency in service, but also an unfair trade practice, on their part. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against Opposite parties NO.1 & 2 with following directions. 

a]  To pay the Insured Declared Value of Rs.51,831/- to the complainant, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 25.1.2018 till payment;

b)  To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficient services and for indulgence into unfair trade practice.

 

c)  To pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/- to the complainant.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy.

 

15]      However, the complaint qua OPs NO.3 to 5 stands dismissed.

 

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

5^th November, 2019                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER