Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/288/2020

Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramanand

22 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATHEBAAD.

 

                                                        Complaint No.  288 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt:      29.10.2020

                                                        Date of decision: 22.09.2023

 

Gurnam Singh son of Gurdev Singh Caste Jat Sikh resident of village Kata Kheri at present Professor Colony Fatehabad.

 

                                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Above Arorvansh Dharamshala Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                        …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 35 of

 

BEFORE:                  SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.    

                                SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER                

                                      DR.K.R.NIRANIA, MEMBER

 

Present: -     Sh. Ramanand, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.U.K.Gera, counsel for Opposite party.

 

Order

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

                   The facts of the present complaint are that the complainant being the registered owner of vehicle HR-62-5902 got it insured with Op vide insurance policy No.35370131170100004744 for the period 12.02.2018 to 11.02.2019; that the sum  assured was to the tune of Rs.7,65,700/-; that during the intervening night of 22.12.2018/23.12.2018 said vehicle was stolen by an unknown person when it was lying in stationary condition in front of the house of the complainant; that regarding this police of Police Station City, Fatehabad had also registered a case FIR No.0711 dated 23.12.2018 under Section 379 IPC; that the complainant intimated the OP/insurance company and further submitted all the requisite documents for the settlement of the claim including the untraced report but the Op did not pay any heed. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the replying OP received the intimation regarding loss of vehicle in question on 24.12.2019 but thereafter he has never cooperated with the insurance company; that he has also not submitted copy of final report alongwith other relevant paper with the replying Op, therefore, the present complaint is pre-mature; that the complainant has also not responded to the letter dated 14.03.2019 written to him by the investigator. Other pleas made in the compliant have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the Op has tendered affidavits of Sh.R.K.Indora, Sr.Divisional Manager and Sh.Sandeep Tantia, Advocate as Ex.RW/A and Ex.RWB

3.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

4.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the theft of the vehicle had taken place during the subsistence of the policy in question and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by him because he has paid premium for getting the vehicle in question insured but the insurance company has not settled the claim despite the fact that the all the formalities have already been completed by the complainant.

5.                          Per contra, it has been argued by learned counsel for the Op that the complainant himself has violated the condition No.5 of the policy by leaving the vehicle unattended with key, therefore, the present compliant is liable to dismissed.

6.                          The facts regarding ownership of vehicle, purchasing of  insurance policy (Annexure C1) by the complainant from the Op, theft of insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy, lodging of FIR (Annexure C2) , submission of untraced report duly accepted by the Court (Annexure C4) as well as other documents  to the OP are need not to be discussed because the Op has stressed hard only on one point that the present complaint is pre-mature as the complainant has never submitted any document with the insurance company.

7.                          It is established on the case file that the insured vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the policy by an unkown person during the intervening night of 22.12.2018/23.12.2018 and regarding this police had lodged FIR on the same day i.e. 23.12.2018, therefore, it appears that the insurance company in this way or that way wants to avoid/linger on the genuine claim of the complainant.  The insurance company is not supposed to earn profit/premium from the customer as it is its prime duty to indemnify the claim for the loss if causes during the subsistence of the policy. 

8.                          It is also not disputed that the vehicle was not traceable and after conducting the throw investigation the police authorities have filed the untraced report duly accepted by the learned CJM, Fatehabad (Annexure C4).  In the present case, one more thing which this Commission has noticed that the insurance company is trying to take the benefit of the submissions submitted by its investigator that the complainant has not cooperated with him and further made false excuses without leading any credible evidence. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been stolen and regarding this FIR has also been registered and the untraced report has also been accepted by the court, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.

9.                Keeping in view the above discussion we have no hitch to allow the present complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Op is directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/- (being IDV mentioned in Annexure C1) alongwith interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  The Op is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation charge, mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation. The order be complied with a period of 45 days, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing the claim till its realization.Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.

10.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission

Dated: 22.09.2023

       

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                           President