Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/286

Raghbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Lakhwinder Singh Chauhan

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      286

Date of Institution:  05.10.2016

Date of Decision :  17.04.2017

 

Raghbir Singh aged 35 years s/o Hardev Singh, r/o #245, Village Dhipanwali,Tehsil and District Faridkot.

 

...Complainants

Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Branch Office (360701), Opp. IOC Depot, Kotkapura. Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

.....OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh  L S Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Y P Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim for his stolen car and for further directing OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that car Make Hyundai of complainant bearing Registration No. HR-51-AQ-3114 was fully insured with OP vide Insurance Policy bearing no.36070131140100006205 valid from 22.07.2014 to 21.07.2015 till 11.59 pm for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-against all kinds of risks including theft. It is submitted that on 21.07.2015, complainant went to Local Hospital, Ganga Nagar for conducting his MRI and he parked his car at parking place of hospital, but at about 3.00 pm, when he came out from hospital, he found that his car was not there, but it was stolen by some body. He made enquiries in nearby areas to search his car, but all in vain and then he got recorded a DDR no. 637 in Police Station on same day i.e 21.07.2015 regarding theft of his car. Police also made efforts to search his car, but no results. Then, an FIR to this effect was also got recorded in Police Station, Jawahar Nagar on the statement of complainant, but till today, his car has not been traced out. Complainant duly informed OP about theft of his car and requested them to make payment of his genuine claim, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and then, flatly refused to pay any claim without any reason. It is further submitted that car of complainant is stolen during the validity of insurance period and action of OP in not making payment of his claim amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OP 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 18.10.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as incident of theft has occurred in Rajasthan and complainant is a resident of Fazilka and therefore, only District Forum of Sri Ganga Nagar or Fazilka have the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is averred that intimation regarding theft was given to Police on 10.09.2015, but this alleged loss occurred on 21.07.2015. DTO office was also not informed and thus, it is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and claim was repudiated as per guidelines of IRDA. As per instructions of Insurance Policy, it was mandatory for complainant to inform OP regarding loss due to theft immediately, but complainant gave intimation to OP regarding this effect vide letter dated 4.11.2015, which received to Op on 12.11.2015 i.e after 114 days of occurrence of theft. It is further averred that Policy in question is obtained by complainant by concealing the material fact and alleging himself to be owner of car on 22.07.2014, but in reality he became the registered owner of said car on 26.08.2014 as per entry in the registration of car and therefore, complainant is not entitled to any compensation from OP. Moreover, lengthy evidence is required, which is not possible in summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act and even complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                  Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Din Dyal Aggarwal as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 13 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                Ld Counsel for complainants vehemently argued that car of complainant bearing Registration No. HR-51-AQ-3114 was insured with OP vide Insurance Policy bearing no.36070131140100006205 valid from 22.07.2014 to 21.07.2015 till 11.59 pm for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-against all kinds of risks including theft and during the validity of insurance policy period on 21.07.2015 it was stolen.  It is submitted that on 21.07.2015, complainant went to Local Hospital, Ganga Nagar for conducting his MRI and he parked his car at parking place of hospital, but at about 3.00 pm, when he came out from hospital, he found that his car was not there, rather it was stolen by some body. He made enquiries in nearby areas to search his car, but all in vain and then he got recorded a DDR no. 637 in Police Station on same day i.e 21.07.2015 regarding theft of his car. Police also made efforts to search his car, but no results. Then, an FIR to this effect was also got recorded in Police Station, Jawahar Nagar on the statement of complainant, but till today, his car has not been traced out. Complainant duly informed OP about theft of his car and requested them to make payment of his genuine claim, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and then, flatly refused to pay any claim without any reason. It is further submitted that car of complainant is stolen during the validity of insurance period and action of OP in not making payment of his claim amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                             To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that present complaint involves complex questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence, which is not possible in summary procedure and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that complainant has concealed the material fact while obtaining insurance policy on 22.07.2014 by alleging himself to be registered owner of car in question, but in reality he became registered of said car on 26.08.2014 as per entry in the registration of car and this transfer is also denied. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as incident of theft has occurred in Rajasthan and complainant is a resident of Fazilka and therefore, only District Forum of Sri Ganga Nagar or Fazilka have the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is averred that intimation regarding theft was given to Police on 10.09.2015, but this alleged loss occurred on 21.07.2015. DTO office was also not informed about  this theft and thus, it is violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and claim was repudiated as per guidelines of IRDA. As per instructions of Insurance Policy, it was mandatory for complainant to inform OP regarding loss due to theft immediately, but complainant gave intimation to OP regarding this effect vide letter dated 4.11.2015, which received to Op on 12.11.2015 i.e after 114 days of occurrence of theft. It is further averred that Policy in question is obtained by complainant by concealing the material fact and alleging himself to be owner of car on 22.07.2014, but in reality he became the registered owner of said car on 26.08.2014 as per entry in the registration of car and therefore, complainant is not entitled to any compensation from OP. Moreover, lengthy evidence is required, which is not possible in summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act and even complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complaint filed by complainant is false, fake and frivolous and he is not entitled to get any relief on account of false allegations. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint.                 

10                                 From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OP, it is observed that case of complainant is that his insured car was stolen during the validity of insurance period and as per rules he gave due intimation regarding this incident to OP and also got recorded FIR  to this effect, but OP have illegally and unlawfully repudiated the insurance claim for no reason, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply OP admitted that they have repudiated the claim of insurance on the ground that intimation regarding theft was given to Police on 10.09.2015, but alleged loss occurred on 21.07.2015. DTO office was also not informed and it is violation of terms and conditions of the It was mandatory for complainant to inform OP regarding loss due to theft immediately, but complainant gave intimation to OP regarding this effect vide letter dated 4.11.2015, which received to Op on 12.11.2015 i.e after 114 days of occurrence of theft. Thus, complainant gave intimation about this theft to OP after about 114 days of occurrence. As per condition no.1 of the Insurance Policy, the complainant had to give notice in writing to the Insurance Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damages in the event of claim, but in the present case, the complainant had not informed regarding the alleged incident to Ops on time.

11                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that they immediately informed regarding the theft of vehicle to Police and Police recorded DDR No. 637 dated 21.07.2015 and further on the basis of this DDR, the Police lodged FIR No. 530 dated 10.09.2015 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, copies of DDR and FIR are Ex C-5 and 2 respectively. He immediately gave information to Ops and submitted all the documents for processing the claim to them. Even Ops appointed an Investigator, who recorded the statement of complainant and also investigated the matter with Police and place, from where vehicle was stolen. Ops are now, intentionally denying this fact only to avoid the liability of indemnifying the complainant regarding his stolen vehicle. If the complainant immediately reported the matter with Police, then, there is no reason for him to not to inform Ops regarding the incident and to claim his genuine insurance claim. Now, the Ops are intentionally denying regarding it. He further argued that if in any case, it is presumed that complainant did not inform Ops regarding incident on time and in that case also, the Ops cannot deny payment of insurance claim to complainant. On this, he put reliance on citation 2016(1) CLT 539 titled as Baja Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Abdul Sattar and anr wherein our Hon’ble National Commission has observed that in order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on relevant condition no.1 of insurance policy, which is reproduced as under”1. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the policy and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender”. On reading the above, it is clear that in the event of theft of the vehicle, only requirement on the part of insured was to intimate the policy immediately and co-operate in securing the conviction of offender. He submitted that as per the observation of Hon’ble National Commission in case of theft, the only requirement on the part of complainant was to intimate the Police immediately and to cooperate with Police in securing the conviction of the offender and complainant duly complied with this condition and immediately reported the matter with Police. Therefore, Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of complainant.

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 and 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 Ops in denying the payment of claim amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the argument, evidence and case law produced by complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- the insured value of vehicle alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the complaint till final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- to complainant as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainants shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 17.04.2017                 

                                      Member                         President

                                      (P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)