Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

Consumer Complaint No. 411

Instituted on :20.07.2022

Decided on :  23.10.2024

Paramjeet son of Sh. Satbir Singh resident of Village Dobh Tehsil & District Rohtak.

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Vs

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. having its office at 313, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak.

…..…..Opposite Party

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Virender Sharma, Adv. for Complainant.

                   Sh. K.K. Luthra, Adv. for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is owner and in possession of a vehicle Truck Tata 2518 bearing registration no. HR-46C-8821, which is duly insured with the opposite party  company vide policy no. 35380031200100003458, effective from 16.07.2020 to 15.07.2021 for IDV Rs. 10,00,000/-. On 11.02.2021, the complainant had parked and locked his truck in front of plot of Rakesh and went to his house. On the very next day, when he visited the spot, he found that the said vehicle was stolen and the complainant got lodged FIR bearing no.58 dated 12.02.2021 with Police Station, Rohtak. The complainant applied for insurance claim of his vehicle and completed the required formalities but the company officials demanded untrace report. The concerned police had submitted untrace report of the vehicle in the Court of Ms. Isha Khatri, Ld.ACJM, Rohtak vide order dated 22.10.2021 and the copy of the same was supplied by the complainant to the respondent. Thereafter the insurance company issued letters dated 15.03.2021, 12.04.2021, 29.05.2021, 14.06.2021, 08.07.2021, 22.06.2021 to the complainant demanding therein some documents which were supplied by the complainant  to the opposite party. But despite assurance, the opposite party failed to pay even a single penny to the complainant till date. The said act for not paying the claim amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the claim amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief, which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.                After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written statement and took some preliminary objection viz. the complaint is pre-mature,  the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party and the complainant has not come with clean hands before the Hon’ble court etc. It has been further submitted by the opposite party that as per the report of investigator, there is 11 days delay in intimation to the opposite party by the complainant, while complainant was under obligation to intimate in writing to the opposite party immediately after the theft of aforesaid vehicle. The Key of theft vehicle submitted by complainant were not matching and are different. Complainant is not cooperating in providing the pending documents and clarification despite writing so many letters dated 15.03.2021, 12.04.2021, 29.05.2021, 14.06.2021, 08.07.2021, 22.06.2021 i.e. explanation of keys not matching, explanation of concealment of loss key, call history from 09.02.2021 to 15.02.2021, letter sent to RTO for keeping the file to IV in safe custody, Last Trip Route Details and its load challan, Tax receipt and green Tax, Reason for 11 days delay in intimation and 100 call record from police control room but the complainant failed to submit the same to the respondent. As the complainant failed to furnish the required documents to the opposite party, the opposite party is unable to process and settle the claim of the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that the claim of the compliant is still pending for want of required documents and formalities. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly, the opposite party sought dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex. CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence on 27.02.2024. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 but failed to adduce any further evidence. Hence, the evidence of opposite party was closed by the court order on 04.07.2024.

4.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                    In the present case, the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the respondent officials. In the written statement, insurance company has submitted that the complainant has failed to complete the required formalities as required by the insurance company to process the claim file.  It has been further submitted that after receiving the information regarding the theft of vehicle, respondent officials deputed ‘Allied Technical Services’ to investigate the matter. The report has been submitted by the investigator with the insurance company on 09.07.2021. The main contention of the investigator is that the key of the vehicle submitted by the complainant is not matching and is different. The respondent further submitted that respondent officials as well as the investigator wrote several letters dated 15.03.2021, 12.04.2021, 16.04.2021, 06.07.2021 to the complainant for submitting the documents/clarifications i.e. key of stolen vehicle was not matching, call history of complainant from 09.02.2021 to 15.02.2021, acknowledgement of letters sent to RTO for keeping the file of subject vehicle in safe custody, updated loan account statements from financers, Non repossession letter from financer, record of call at 100 from PCR, Original Un-trace/Final report, letter to NCRB office, Last trip route details & its load challan, tax receipt and Green Tax, reason of 11 days delay in intimation. As per the respondent the above mentioned clarifications/explanations, documents are not provided by the complainant. Thereafter the insurance company sent letters dated 22.06.2022, 21.07.2022 to the complainant requesting him to provide the above mentioned documents but the complainant failed to provide the alleged documents and that is why the claim was not settled. . To prove this fact respondent officials placed on record 7 letters Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and investigation report as Ex.R8. We have minutely perused the documents. Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A are the affidavits filed by the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10.   As per Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 they have demanded 11 documents  and clarifications from the complainant to settle the claim. As per Ex.R3 to Ex.R7, they have demanded 14 type of clarifications/documents from the complainant.

6.                As per our opinion regarding the objection of key, the insurance company failed to place on record any authentic evidence i.e. technical report that the keys are different in nature. The insurance company also not placed on record any photograph  of the keys. The insurance company further demanded the call history of the complainant from 09.02.2021 to 15.02.2021. As per our opinion, insurance company is demanding the personal information of the complainant i.e. call history from02.09.2021 to 15.02.2021 and it was not required for the complainant to provide his private information. Regarding the delayed intimation to the insurance company,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”.  We have minutely perused the survey report. Some of the clarifications have been mentioned itself in his report Ex.R8 i.e. surveyor has mentioned in his report that file of the vehicle is in  safe custody and the surveyor has answered as “Yes”. He also mentioned the date on which the file has been received in RTO office i.e. 08.03.2021. Regarding the query that ‘vehicle repossessed by the financer’, regarding this clarification investigator itself mentioned with “No” and has further submitted that : “Insured has submitted non repossession letter from RTO”. The perusal of this report itself shows that the complainant himself has moved an application to the police regarding theft of vehicle, so record of No.100 is not required. Some other minor objections have been taken by the opposite party only just to linger on the matter and to non-settlement of the claim of complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per RC Ex.C6, the vehicle is hypothecated with HDB Finance Service Private Ltd. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the financer. As per insurance Certificate Ex.C5, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.1000000/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the alleged amount to the financer.

7.                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.1000000/-(Rupees ten lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.20.07.2022 to till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the HDB Financial Services Ltd. Rohtak for settlement of loan account of the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. It is made clear that after settlement of loan account, if any amount remains as surplus, the same shall be paid to the complainant. 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 23.10.2024 of this Commission. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.

8.                Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

9.                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:

23.10.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.