View 9489 Cases Against The New India Assurance
View 15842 Cases Against New India Assurance
M/s Atul Sales Corporation filed a consumer case on 04 Jul 2016 against The New India Assurance Company Ltd. in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/173/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 22 Jul 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 173 of 2013.
Date of institution: 04.03.2013
Date of decision: 04.07.2016.
M/s Atul Sales Corporation, through its Proprietor/Partner Shri G.S.Jain aged about 64 years son of Sh. K.M.S. Jain, near Jagadhri Club, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
… Respondent.
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT
SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. D.S.Khurana, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Smt. Aruna Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
1. Complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant firm, are that he is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-08-BC-2393 bearing chassis No. 57579 Engine No. 70173 which was insured for a sum of Rs. 23,800/- vide its policy bearing No. 35350331090100200331 valid from 22.10.2009 to 21.10.2010 with the OP Insurance Company. The motorcycle of the complainant was stolen from near Civil Hospital, Jalandhar City on 17.04.2010 between 8.30 P.M. to 8.45 P.M. and in this regard an FIR bearing No. 117 dated 22.04.2010 under section 379 IPC was lodged with the police station Jalandhar City. A claim was also lodged with the Op Insurance Company and all the requisite documents were submitted, however, the OP Insurance Company put off the matter on one pretext or the other. A demand was raised for getting the vehicle transferred in the name of Op Insurance Company. The complainant transferred the motorcycle in question in the name of OP Insurance Company and ultimately the Op Insurance Company released an amount of Rs. 17800/- to the complainant on 30.05.2012. The complainant was entitled to get the insured amount of Rs. 23,800/- alongwith interest w.e.f. 20.05.2010 to 30.05.2012 but the OP insurance company has released less amount of Rs. 17,800/- after deducting the amount of Rs 6000/- from the sum insured amount. Besides this, the complainant was also entitled to get Rs. 2500/- on account of expenses for transferring the motorcycle in question in the name of company. The complainant made so many requests to the OP Insurance Company to release the difference amount i.e. Rs. 6000/- but the OP Insurance Company flatly refused. Hence, this complaint.
3. In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of FIR bearing No. 117 dated 22.04.2010 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Insurance Policy as Annexure C-2, Certified copy of untraceable report issued by the competent court as Annexure c-3 and C-4, Photo copy of letter for sending the untraceable report to the company as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of another letter submitting documents as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 19.04.2010 as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as alleged theft took place on 17.04.2010 and the complainant lodged the FIR on 22.04.2010 i.e. after 5 days of the alleged theft. As per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy Annexure R-1, it is mandatory to lodge FIR immediately and to inform the Insurance Company within a period of 24 hours but the complainant failed to do so. Further, the OP Insurance Company appointed the investigator to get the NCRB report but since the engine number and chassis number were not mentioned in the FIR, the official concerned regretted his inability to issue the NCRB Certificate. The letter of the investigator is Annexure R-2. However, as the complainant was a precious customer of the OP Insurance Company, so, the claim was settled on sub-standard basis and on merit it is not denied that motorcycle in question was not insured with the OP Insurance Company for a sum insured of Rs. 23,800/- vide policy bearing No.35350331090100200331 valid w.e.f. 22.10.2009 to 21.12.2010 and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of their version counsel for the Op Insurance Company tendered into evidence short affidavit of Sh. B.L. Jagwan, Divisional Manager as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter of investigator Sh. A.S. Vias dated 24.11.2010 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter issued by OP Insurance Company as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of letter dated 21.10.2010 issued by the Op Insurance Company to the complainant for incorporating the engine number and chassis number in the FIR as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.
7. The only grievances of the complainant is that the OP Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally deducted an amount of Rs. 6000/- from the insured amount of Rs. 23,800/- and paid Rs.17,800/- and the claim of the complainant has been settled on the basis of sub-standard and the complainant is entitled to get full sum insured from the OP Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that claim of the complainant has been settled as Sub Standard on account of report of the investigator in which it has been mentioned that chassis number and engine number of the motorcycle was not incorporated in the FIR lodged by the complainant bearing No. 117 dated 22.04.2010 whereas the OP Insurance Company cannot settle the case of the complainant as sub standard on this account as there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the complainant because the complainant has duly lodged the FIR in question by disclosing the registration of the motorcycle in question as PB-08BC-2393. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.
8. On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company argued that the claim of the complainant has been rightly settled on sub standard basis and an amount of Rs. 17,800/- had already been paid to the complainant and requested for dismissal of complaint.
9. After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We have gone through the insurance policy (annexure R-1) but no such condition has been incorporated in the insurance policy in question by the OP. When the registration number of the motorcycle in question was duly mentioned in the FIR, then how the OP Insurance Company can settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of sub standard. Moreover, it was not the duty of the complainant that he lodged the chassis number and engine number with the NCRB, so it cannot be said that there was any negligence or carelessness on the part of the complainant.
10. In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that OP Insurance Company has wrongly settled the claim of the complainant on sub standard basis and paid Rs. 17800/- instead of Rs. 23,800/- i.e. sum insured. As such, the complainant is entitled to get relief.
11. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay the difference amount of Rs. 6000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 30.05.2012 till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 04.07.2016.
( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.