Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/248/2022

Ajay Singh Rawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

the Managing Director & CEO, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Rajesh Kumar Bhagal

22 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	248 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	04.04.2022
Date of Decision	:	22.03.2024

 

                     

            

 

Ajay Singh Rawat aged 44 years s/o Sh.Bannae Singh Rawat, resident of House No.36, Khuda Alisher, U.T., Chandigarh

...Complainant

VERSUS

1]  The Managing Director & CEO, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Premises No.25 & 26, Kapadia Commercial Complex, Opposite Janalakshmi Bank (HO), Old Agra Nashik, Maharashtra 422002

2]  The Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.127-128, First Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:      MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,  PRESIDENT

             MR.B.M.SHARMA             MEMBER

 

Present:-         Sh.Rajesh Kumar Bhagal, Counsel for the complainant

                  Sh.Sahil Abhi, Counsel for the OPs

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that his Motor Cycle bearing Regd. No.CH 21-T-4842 Make Hero was insured with OP Insurance Company for the period from 04.08.2019 to 03.08.2020 with IDV of Rs.51006/- (Ann.C-2).  The said insured vehicle was stole on 27.6.2020 from the market of Sector 37, Chandigarh, which was reported to the police whereupon FIR No.208, dated 27.6.2020 u/S 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh (Ann.C-3).  The loss/theft was also intimated to the OP Insurance Company on 28.6.2020.  It is submitted that the complainant also supplied all requisite documents and key of the said vehicle to OP Insurance Company and also supplied them Untraced Report dated 5.4.2021 in respect of said vehicle issued by the court of JMIC, Chandigarh (Ann.C-4).  However, the OP Insurance Company did not pay the insurance claim of the vehicle in question despite receipt of all necessary documents. A legal notice dated 16.8.2021 was also sent to the OPs in this regard but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed alleging that the aforesaid act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question as well as compensation and as litigation expenses.

 

2]       After service of notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission and filed their written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 18.9.2020 as per terms & conditions of the policy.  It is submitted that since the complainant violated the condition of the policy of taking reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss as he admitted in the claim form that one key was left in ignition of the vehicle which was also stolen along with the vehicle (ann.OP-3A).  Further the complainant had submitted only one key of the insured vehicle.   It is submitted that the theft claim has also been invested from M/s Probe Services Investigators who also submitted report dated 19.8.2020.  The complainant was also called to submit clarification but he failed to submit it.  It is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false and pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of the OPs made in their written version. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record.

6]       The main issue involved in the present complaint is whether OPs Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant, wrongly and arbitrarily or not?

7]       In order to find out answer to this question, the issue involved in the present case is discussed as under.

         It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OPs at the time of loss/theft and the theft was timely reported to the Police Authorities as well as OP Insurance Company.  It is observed that the complete claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant violated the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy by not taking reasonable care to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damaged as he left the key in the ignition.  In our opinion the breach of any terms & conditions of the policy, cannot result in total repudiation of the claim and it ought to have been settled on the non-standard basis.

 

8]       Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amalendau Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Il (2010)CPJ 9 (S.C.), wherein it has been held as under:-

12.       Reference in this case may be made to the decision of National Commission rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Singh reported in 2006 CTJ 221 (CP) (NCDRC). In that decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis. The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008 (7) SCALE 351.

 

9]       In the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ashok Kumar vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.4758 of 2023, decided on 31.07.2023, it has been held that:-

Theft - Effect of contributory negligence - Reversal of order directing Insurance company to indemnify claimant on non-standard basis to extent of 75% of sum assured - Held, Claimant's driver, got off vehicle to inquire about address, leaving key in ignition - In view of judgments of Supreme Court in [(2008) 11 SCC 259] and [(2010) 4 SCC 536] where there is some contributory factor, proportionate deduction from assured amount would be all that Insurance Company can aspire to deduct - Therefore, District Forum and the State Commission justified in awarding entire 75% of admissible claim restored - Therefore, reversal of order set aside.

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion, findings and settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the OPs illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant in toto instead of settling it at least on non-standard basis, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed against the OPs No.1 & 2 with direction to pay an amount of Rs.38,254/- to the complainant, being 75% of the IDV Rs.51006/- of the insured vehicle, along with interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 18.9.2020 till the date of actual payment to the Complainant.

         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

11]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22.03.2024                                                                   

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER