Haryana

Karnal

CC/240/2022

Rampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager national Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Singh Rana

29 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.240 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 22.04.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 29.10.2024

 

Rampal son of Shri Prithvi Singh, resident of VPO Amritpur Kalan District Karnal, age 37 years. Aadhar card no.2977 5270 8022.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.  The Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office: near Prem Plaza Hotel Railway Road, Karnal.
2. The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office: 3, Middleton Street, P.B. no.9229, Kolkata-700071.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Manoj Singh Rana, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Bhaskar Bhalla, counsel for the OPs.

                   

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of TATA Dumfer bearing registration no.HR 45B-8364. The said vehicle is insured with the OPs, vide policy no.420303311910004127, valid from 10.03.2020 to 09.03.2021 for a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-. On 20.10.2020, the driver of complainant parked said vehicle in front of his house and on 21.10.2020 when the driver of complainant saw that vehicle is not found there where he had parked the said vehicle. The driver of complainant informed the complainant in this regard and complainant searched the vehicle but vehicle could not found anywhere. After the said incident, complainant reported the matter to the police and registered an FIR no.350 dated 22.10.2020 under section 379 IPC Police Station, Madhuban regarding the said incident. Thereafter, complainant informed the matter to the OPs and lodged the claim against the said vehicle. Thereafter, surveyor of OPs completed survey/investigation in the matter and inspected the spot. Complainant has submitted entire relevant documents and lodged a claim against the said vehicle within time. The police of Police Station Madhuban conducted investigation of the said incident and submit untrace report before Higher Police officials as well as Learned Illaqua Magistrate, Karnal. Complainant submitted untrace report to OPs and OPs assured that claim against the said vehicle will be released as soon as possible. The complainant has no source of income for his livelihood except the said vehicle. Complainant received a letter no.420500/Motor/1/12/2022 dated 06.01.2022 from OPs in which OPs illegally close the claim file as No Claim. In the said letter, OPs intentionally mentioned wrong policy number as 420203311910004127 instead of 420303311910004127 whereas name and vehicle number of complainant is correct. By not issuing the claim amount and other benefits by OPs, complainant has suffered lot of harassment as well as financial loss. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.01.2022 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs 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 the complainant’s vehicle TATA Dumper bearing registration no.HR-45-B-8364 was alleged to be stolen by someone on the midnight of 20-21.10.2020 from the village Nagla, Karnal. The said vehicle was insured with the OPs and the complainant lodged claim with the OPs on 27.10.2021. On receipt of claim, the matter was investigated and OPs asked the complainant, vide letters dated 22.03.2021 and 17.06.2021 to submit the required documents but complainant failed to submit the said documents, which were very necessary to decide the claim of complainant. OPs sent various reminders in this regard but complainant did not submit the said documents. Thus, OPs rightly closed the claim of complainant, vide its letter dated 16.07.2021. It is further pleaded that as per the request of the complainant, OPs again opened the claim file and issued a letter dated 06.01.2022  and its reminder dated 21.01.2022 to the complainant to submit the list of documents within 7 days to decide the claim of the complainant on final basis but the complainant failed to comply the said letters. Thus, OPs have rightly closed the claim of complainant, vide its letter dated 29.01.2022. The contents of said letters are as under:-

        “This is reference to our registered letters dated 06.01.2022 and 21.01.2022 regarding the submission of your reply/comments.

 But till date we have not received any reply/comments from you. Hence your claim file is closed as no claim.” Thus, the present complaint is premature since claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim on the ground of non-submission of the required documents. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 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, affidavit of Jai Bhagwan Ex.CW2/A, copy of FIR Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of RC Ex.C3, copy of denial letter dated 06.01.2022 Ex.C4, copy of legal notice dated 18.01.2022 Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7,  copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C8, copy of application moved by complainant to Police Ex.C9, copy of site plan Ex.C10, copy of report qua investigation by DSP Karnal Ex.C11, copy of statement of complainant record in Court Ex.C12, copy of court order dated 27.08.2021 Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 12.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Monika Ranote Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of claim intimation Ex.OP1, copy of claim form Ex.OP2, copy of final report Ex.OP3, copy of RC Ex.OP4, copy of RTA  report Ex.OP5, copy of driving licence of complainant Ex.OP6, copy of driving licence verification Ex.OP7, copy of driving licence of Jai Bhagwan Ex.OP8, copy of photo key Ex.OP9, copy of letter dated 22.08.2021 Ex.OP10, copy of letter Ex.OP11, copy of no claim letter dated 16.07.2021 Ex.OP12 to Ex.OP14, copy of letter dated 11.09.2021 Ex.OP15, copy of letter dated 23.09.2021 Ex.OP16, copy of letter dated 06.01.2022 Ex.OP17,  copy of legal notice dated 17.01.2022 Ex.OP18, copies of letters dated 06.01.2022, 21.01.2022 and 29.01.2022 Ex.OP19 to Ex.OP21, copy of reply of legal notice dated 04.02.2022 Ex.OP22, copy of letter dated 15.03.2022 Ex.OP23, copy of letter dated 22.03.2022 Ex.OP24, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP25, copy of package policy document Ex.OP26 and closed the evidence on 23.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint has vehemently argued that during the subsistence of insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen. Intimation was given to police as well as to the OPs. FIR no.350 dated 22.10.2020 was registered with the Police Station, Madhuban, Karnal. Complainant submitted the claim with the OPs and completed all the required formalities for settlement of the claim but OPs did not pay the claim amount and closed the claim of complainant on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that inspite of the repeated letters and reminders, complainant failed to submit the required documents, hence the claim of complainant has rightly been closed by the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.14,00,000/-. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question could not be recovered and police submitted untrace report before the Illaqua Magistrate, Karnal.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OPs, vide closure letter Ex.OP21 dated 29.01.2022 on the following grounds, which are reproduced as under:-

                “This is reference to our registered letters dated 06.01.2021 and 21.01.2022 regarding the submission of your reply/comment.

                But till date we have not received any reply/comment from you. Hence your claim file is closed as no claim.

12.           Vide letter Ex.OP19 dated 06.01.2022, OPs sought the following documents, which are reproduced as under:-

1. Permit for plying the vehicle is required further no online records for permit. How the liability can be admitted without valid permit of the GCV.
2. Road tax not paid on the date of loss.
3. The driving license of driver Jai Bhagwan not valid and effective on the date of loss.
4. The name of the driver in FIR and statements is Jai Bhagwan whereas in claim from & intimation letter, the name of driver is stated as Rampal and no clarification on this aspect has been taken, please clarify.
5. No proof of existence of vehicle before the date of loss. Please clarify and send us the proof.
6. Delay of 6 days in information to the company. Please clarify.
7. In investigation report two photographs of keys are enclosed and in one photograph five keys were shown and another photograph show two set of keys i.e. four keys. The insured has submitted three keys.  Further both ignition keys are all together different and no verification for genuineness of keys is obtained. Please clarify.
8. Dial 100 call report and not submitted. Please clarify.
9. No letter to RTO and NCRB for theft of vehicle. Please send us the copy and NCRB report.

10. .Court acceptance of Non-Traceable report not submitted by you. Please send us the non-traceable report of court.

 

13.           The claim of the complainant has been closed on the abovesaid grounds. OPs have alleged that complainant has not submitted the required documents despite various letters and reminders. OPs have sent a letter Ex.OP10 dated 22.03.2021 and letter Ex.OP11 (date, month and year not readable) to the complainant and sought the following documents:-

        1. Non-traceable report (Cr.P.C. 173) duly signed and stamped.

        2. Both the original keys of the vehicle.

        Except untrace report and keys, OPs have not demanded any other documents from the complainant. Complainant vide application Ex.OP15 dated 15.09.2021 had submitted the untrace report, copy of old policy and both the keys to the OPs and OPs had received the same. OPs have itself relied upon the said application (Ex.OP15). But lateron vide letter Ex.OP19, OPs again raised the unnecessary queries. It appears that OPs have issued the letter Ex.OP19, just to deny the claim and harassment of the complainant. If the alleged documents were necessary to the OPs, same should have been demanded in the earlier letter Ex.OP10 and Ex.OP11.  Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such amount why he will not supply the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigations. Hence, we found no substance in the contentions of OP.

14.           Furthermore, now a days it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and while giving claim amount, they make such type of excuses. Thus, denial of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we relied upon the case law of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court 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”.

                Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid authority, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OPs while closing the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

15.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2/Ex.OP25, the insured declared value(IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.14,00,000/-.   Hence the complainant is entitled for the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 16.          Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.14,00,000/- (Rs. fourteen lakhs only) the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing of the claim i.e. 29.01.2022 till its realization to  the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. Complainant is also directed to complete all the formalities with regard to transfer/cancel of the RC of the vehicle in question in favour of OPs.  This order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 29.10.2024                                                           

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

         (Neeru Agarwal)               (Sarvjeet Kaur)

            Member                           Member