Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 572
Instituted on : 07.11.2019
Decided on : 19.03.2024
Dharampal age 36 years, s/o Nafe Singh R/o VPO Kharawar, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 313, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Manager.
- The New India Assurance co. Ltd. Regd. & Head Office, New India Assurance Building 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai through its Managing Director.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Surender Laura Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had insured his vehicle bearing no.HR-46D-8389from the opposite parties vide policy No.35380031160100000925 for a period of one year i.e. w.e.f. 26.04.2016 to 25.04.2017. On 14.02.2017 when the complainant was in Bangalore on his another vehicle, he received a telephonic message from his driver that he had parked the above said vehicle on road in village Kharawar, but when he came back from the house, he found the vehicle stolen by some unknown person. The complainant on the same day intimated to Rohtak police telephonically about the theft of vehicle. After some days complainant returned from Bangalore and inquired about the incident of theft of vehicle. The complainant contacted to the police and they lodged an FIR No.96 dated 07.03.2017 u/s 379 IPC in this regard at P.S.SamplaRohtak and due intimation in this regard was given to the opposite party No.1 at branch office, Rohtak . The concerned police could not trace the vehicle and had submitted the “Untraced Report”. The complainant submitted the claim with the respondent’s office but the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant for the reason that the respondent have intimated the loss of vehicle to police on 07.03.2017 though the vehicle was stolen on 14.02.2017 i.e. after the 21 days of loss/theft but as a matter of fact the complainant has intimated to Police station and the respondent by telephonically on the same day but because the complainant had gone to Bangalore and only after returning back from Bangalore, he approached to the police and the police registered the FIR on 07.03.2017. Therefore repudiation of the claim is quite unlawful. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed topay the IDV of Rs.550000/- and also to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite partiesin their reply has submitted thaton receiving the information on 15.12.2017 about the theft of vehicle, the opposite parties appointed Sh. Kailash Sharma as investigator and he submitted in his report that : “ 1. The insured is not fulfilling the required formalities despite reminders. 2. FIR is delayed by 22 days. No VT report etc. for timely intimation to the police has been provided. Intimation to insurance company after more than 9 months . 3. Three letters including two registered letters has been written to him but these have come back without delivery with the report person not found in the village despite several visits. Further one letter directly given to the insured by hand which is duly received by the insured. 4. There are multiple types of complaints in this case. The exact facts of the theft is not clear”. Hence the investigator opined that the insured is not interested in his claim. He is not providing the requisite documents. The intimation to police and company is very much delayed. Hence as per terms and conditions of the policy, opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence on dated 06.01.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R15 and closed his evidence on 24.11.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R10 on the ground that there is considerable delay of 10 months in intimation to the company and 21 days in lodging the FIR.In this regard we have placed reliance upon the judgmentsof Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition no.2033 of 2018, decided on 14.09.2021 in case titled a OIC Vs. Hari Kishan Khatri &Anr., order dated 26.10.2017 in RSA No.4958 of 2017(O & M) in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. GhanShyamDass and another and order of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 titled as Dharmender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &Ors., whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Repudiation of claim on ground of delay of 78 days in not informing insurance company of theft-Held, mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured”. In view of the aforesaid law it is observed that same are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, driver Vishal has filed an affidavit Ex.CW2/A submitting therein that he gave the information of theft on police control room no.100 and also made written complaint at the Police Station, Kharawar. However, no supporting document has been annexed with this affidavit. Hence the complainant is entitled for the 75% claim on non standard basis. The IDV of the vehicle as per policyEx.C/3 is Rs.555000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for 75% claim i.e. Rs.416250/-.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.416250/-(Rupees four lac sixteen thousand two hundred and fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 07.11.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision.However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 19.03.2024 of this Commission. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
