Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/155

M/s Ram Lal Jai Pal Bricks Company - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Lt. - Opp.Party(s)

Amrit Bansal

25 Nov 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :        155 of 2018

Date of Institution:     24.09.2018

Date of Decision :      25.11.2019

 

M/s Ram Lal Jai Pal Bricks Company, Village Wander Jatana, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its sole proprietor Sahil Garg son of late Pawan Kumar Garg son of Ram Lal resident of Krishna Street No.3, Fauji Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                                        

...Complainant

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, having its Office at 1215, 12^th Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Branch Office, Kotkapura District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
3. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

.......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

cc no.-155 of 2018

 

Present: Sh Amrit Bansal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

             Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2,

   OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to them to make payment of genuine insurance claim for his stolen vehicle and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- to complainant.

2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Swift New ZDI bearing RC No.PB 04W 7016 registered with District Transport Office, Faridkot was duly insured with OPs vide Insurance Policy No.31260031150303251708 for sum assured of Rs.7,02,394/- and during the subsistence of said policy on 26.02.2016, vehicle of complainant was snatched by some unidentified persons forcibly at gun point. He immediately got recorded FIR No.28 Dated 26.02.2016 under Section 382/34 IPC at Police Station City, Kotkapura and also informed OPs regarding this snatching incident. Police also gave him Untraceable Report dated 13.06.2016. complainant duly completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents to OPs for processing his claim, but OPs did not pass his genuine claim. He made several requests to OPs to clear

cc no.-155 of 2018

his claim but all in vain and even issuance of legal notice dated 17.09.2016 by complainant to OPs through his counsel served no purpose. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25.09.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                               On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present matter and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that alleged incident occurred on 26.02.2016, but complainant reported the matter to OPs on 4.03.2016 and as per instructions of IRDA, no claim is payable to him. Moreover, complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. On receipt of information from complainant, they immediately appointed an Investigator to investigate about the cause of nature of loss and he submitted his report dated 13.05.2016 to them vide which there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements given by claimant before Police and said Investigator. Moreover, complainant did not cooperate with the Investigator in respect of certain queries asked by

cc no.-155 of 2018

him regarding settlement of claim. Statement given by complainant with the Police differs the statement given by him before Investigator because as per statement given by him with Police, it is mentioned that just after said alleged incident, he went home and his uncle accompanied him to Police Station and they lodged complaint with Police, but in statement given by him to Investigator, he stated that after occurrence of snatching incident, he went to Chawla Restaurant, contacted its Manager and asked him to give his mobile phone for calling his cousin to give information regarding that incident to his family members and after calling his cousin, his cousin reached there in few minutes and helped him in locating his car in nearby area and when they did not find the same, they went to Police Station City Kotkapura and got recorded their report to Police and after completion of enquiry, Police registered FIR No.28 dated 26.02.2016. it is also mentioned that all documents pertaining to car in question were in dash board of said car. It is further averred that at the time of said incident, claimant was not having valid and effective driving license and he has levelled false complaint. However, on merits, OP-1 and2 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                             Registered cover containing notice and copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-3, but it did not receive back undelivered and was deemed to be served. Nobody appeared

cc no.-155 of 2018

on behalf of OP-3 in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel, therefore, vide order dated 28.11.2018, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-18 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.

7                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Din Dyal Aggarwal Ex OP-1,2/1 and documents Ex OP-1,2/2 to Ex OP-1,2/8 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the record.

9                                               From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that insured car of complainant was snatched by someone during the validity of insurance period and as per rules he gave due intimation regarding this incident to OPs as well as Police, who registered FIR no. 0028 to this effect on 26.02.2016 Ex C-17, but OPs have not made a single penny on account of insurance claim. Action of OPs in not making payment of

cc no.-155 of 2018

genuine insurance claim on account of theft of his vehicle, amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP-1 and 2 stressed mainly on the point that complainant did not give intimation to them regarding said theft in time. OP-1 and 2 alleged that said alleged theft occurred on 26.02.2016, but he gave information regarding this incident to them on 4.03.2016 after delay of long time. Moreover, complainant neither approached them in time nor cooperated with the investigator appointed by them as he did not give proper reply to the certain queries asked by said Investigator and even there is great variation in statements given by complainant with Police and before Investigator and thus, nothing is payable to him as per instructions of IRDA.There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                            The main objection raised by OP-1 and 2 is that the alleged theft occurred on 26.02.2016, but he information regarding this loss to them on 4.03.2016 after a delay of long time. It is observed that when complainant reported the matter to Police immediately after the occurrence of theft incident to Police and after verification and investigation, Police also registered FIR to this effect on 26.02.2016, then there is no reason for complainant to intimate the OPs. He might have informed OPs verbally in time and in written on 4.03.2016. Ld counsel for complainant argued that complainant immediately informed regarding the incident of snatching of his vehicle to Police and OPs on 26.02.2016. There is no reason for complainant to

cc no.-155 of 2018

cause delay in giving information regarding theft of his vehicle and complainant is not guilty of any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy in question and there is no fault on his part as he immediately reported the matter to Police and Police registered the FIR No.0028 on 26.02.2016. To prove his case, complainant placed on record copy of FIR No.0028 dated 26.02.2016, which proves the pleadings of complainant as it is clearly mentioned in it that complainant reported the matter regarding theft of his vehicle to Police immediately. From Ex C-18, it is clear that vehicle in question was in the name of complainant firm and from Ex C-15 copy of certificate issued by Excise and Texation Officer, Ward No. 2, Kotkapura that after the death of earlier proprietor of said firm, it is inherited by the claimant and he is now the sole proprietor of complainant firm. Ex. C-13, copy of Policy Schedule further clears the pleadings of complainant that his vehicle was duly insured with them vide policy in question for sum assured of Rs.7,02,394/-against all kinds of risks including theft. Ld counsel for complainant argued that only duty of complainant is to inform the Police regarding incident and it is on the Police to submit the Untraceable Report to the concerned court.

11                                       Second objection raised by OP-1 and 2 that there is discrepancy and contradiction in the statements made by complainant before Police and before the Investigator appointed by them, is totally baseless as it has nothing to do with the offence committed. It is

 

cc no.-155 of 2018

admitted that vehicle of complainant was snatched by someone and Police also registered FIR after conducting due investigation regarding it. The investigator appointed by Insurance Company also investigated the matter and found that said incident occurred and claim was genuine one and thus, variation in statement does not effect the nature of report or FIR registered by Police. Person who accompanied the complainant to Police station in reporting the said incident, has no role to play in processing the claim as presence or name of said person cannot alter the allegations levelled by complainant under said report under section 382/34IPC. It is observed that complainant immediately gave information to Police as well as Ops and submitted all the documents for processing the claim to them and there is no non cooperation on his part. Ops are now, intentionally denying this fact only to avoid the liability of indemnifying the complainant regarding his snatched vehicle. Grounds taken by OPs in not clearing the claim of complainant, has no legs to stand upon as he has duly reported the matter to Police as well as OPs and has also fully cooperated with Investigator and also furnished requisite documents to them for processing his claim, but now, the OP-1 and 2 are intentionally trying to delay the insurance claim regarding theft of his vehicle. Therefore, Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of complainant. Reasons forwarded by Ops for not allowing the claim of complainant are not plausible and their action in denying payment of claim on baseless grounds is not appropriate and genuine, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

 

cc no.-155 of 2018

12                                            From the above discussion and case law produced by the complainant, we are of considered opinion that complainant immediately reported the matter with Police and lodged FIR with Police and also intimated Ops. Ops cannot deny the payment of insurance claim of vehicle of complainant on the ground that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Act of Insurance Company in denying the payment of claim amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the arguments, evidence and case law produced by complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and 2. OP-1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.7,02,394/- i.e insured value of lost vehicle subject to transfer of Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of OP-1 and OP-2 and also to execute other required documents for payment of claim by complainant in favour of OP-1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of these documents in their favour, failing which OP-1 and 2 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the complaint till final realization. OP-1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment suffered and litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-3 stands

 

cc no.-155 of 2018

hereby dismissed. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 25.11.2019       

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                      Member                         President