| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 301 of 17.11.2020 Decided on : 22-05-2024 Baljinder Singh aged about 50 years S/o Chuhar Singh R/o village Sidhana, Tehsil Phul and District Bathinda (Punjab). ........Complainant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A-25/27, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi - PIN CODE: 110002, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Bathinda, 4501, Bank Street, Bathinda - PIN CODE: 151001. Roshan Wadhwa, Development Officer, Sukhanand Basti, VPO Tapa, District Sangrur (Pb)- PIN CODE: 148108.
.......Opposite parties M/s Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited, Spencer Plaza, No.769, 4th Floor, Phase-II, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002, through its Branch Manager. …....Performa Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. Priti Malhotra, President Smt. Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.N.K Garg, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.Sunder Gupta, counsel for OP No.1 to 3. Sh.Gurinder Singh, counsel for OP No.4. ORDER Priti Malhotra, President The complainant Baljinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one insurance policy bearing No.233200/31/2020/1523 valid from 4.7.2019 to 3.7.2020 for his TATA LPS 4018 Truck bearing R.C No.PB-03R-9971 from opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.58,155/- through opposite party No.3. At the time of purchase of policy, opposite party No.3 assured that the policy covers damage to the insured truck upto Rs.8,00,000/-, its theft, insurance of owner-driver to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and other additional riders that will be covered under law. It is further alleged that on 30.12.2019, the truck was stolen by some unknown person as it was parked outside the house of complainant in properly locked and safe condition. The complainant lodged an FIR No.0141 dated 30.12.2019 with Police Station, City Rampura. On the same day, he alongwith his friend Satwinder Singh S/o Gurdev Singh R/o Urban Estate Near Jore Pull, Rampura and Harinder Pal Singh S/o Jaswant Singh R/o Mehraj Basti, Rampura Phul informed opposite party No.3, he on the next day, in the presence of Satwinder Singh and Harinder Pal Singh for the completion of formalities regarding lodging of claim with opposite party Nos.1 and 2, took the relevant papers including copies of FIR, R.C. of truck and copy of permit etc. and took the signatures of the complainant on various printed and plain papers. At the same time, both the keys of truck were handed over to opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that his claim is lodged with the company well within time and now after the lapse of 3 months, if truck is not found within period of 3 months, insured amount will be paid to him. It is further alleged that the complainant waited for 3 months and before the expiry of period of 3 months, lockdown/curfew was imposed in State of Punjab due to spread of CORONA Virus-Covid 19. After lifting up of the curfew, the complainant approached opposite parties and informed that till June 2020, the truck is not found/ traced out by the police authorities and complainant requested for payment of insurance amount, but they delayed his payment on the pretext that challan has not been presented by the police authorities till date. Delaying or withholding the claim of the complainant on this pretext is not justified as after the lapse of 3 months, he becomes entitled to the payment of insurance amount and as per law, there is no requirement or justification for waiting till the presentation of challan by the police authorities. The complainant is entitled for the payment of Rs.8,00,000/- as insurance amount alongwith 18% interest for the delayed period. It is further alleged that the complainant repeatedly approached opposite parties for the settlement of claim/payment of insurance amount, but they are delaying the payment of insurance claim on vague and false grounds. He got issued legal notice dated 27.7.2020 to opposite parties through his counsel and requested them for the payment of claim amount, but in vain. Opposite parties did not bother to reply to the legal notice. It is also alleged that the above said Truck of complainant is financed by opposite party No.4. Due to non-payment of insurance claim by opposite party Nos.1 to 3, interest on financed amount is continuously running and complainant is bound to pay the same. Interest after the date of theft of vehicle is incurred by the complainant due to delay in settlement of claim by opposite parties, so he is entitled to get the interest at the same rate for which he is bound to pay the same to opposite party No.4. Although, in this complaint, the complainant does not claim any relief against opposite party No.4, but same is arrayed as opposite party in this complaint as the complainant considers it to be necessary party being the financier of the insured vehicle. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to pay him the insurance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim i.e. 30.12.2019 and to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raising legal objections that the truck bearing RC No.PB-03R-9971 is insured with them vide policy bearing No.233200/31/2020/1523 effective from 4.7.2019 to 3.7.2020 with CSI Rs.8,00,000/- and terms and conditions of the insurance policy alongwith policy were delivered to the complainant immediately and truck allegedly was stolen on 30.12.2019 while it was allegedly parked outside the house of the complainant regarding which FIR No.0141 dated 30.12.2019 was allegedly recorded in P.S. City Rampura, but even as per FIR, intimation regarding the alleged theft has been given to the police after 4-5 days of its theft and as per record, no intimation regarding the theft was given to opposite parties within stipulated period and as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, intimation regarding the theft of vehicle has to be given immediately to the insurance company and due to non-giving of intimation within reasonable period, the complainant has facilitated the thieves to carry away the vehicle to faraway places. As such, opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Further legal objections are that after receipt of intimation regarding the theft, opposite parties deputed Mr.Kiranjit Singh Romana, Investigator to investigate the theft claim of insured vehicle, he visited the place of theft and asked the complainant to submit some documents that he has failed to produce in spite of registered letter dated 6.8.2020 and 23.12.2010, so the investigator was left with no option except to submit his report dated 3.1.2021 with opposite party No.2 with the conclusion that despite all out efforts and meeting claimant Baljinder Singh, he failed to co-operate him and ignored registered letter also and failed to submit the required document, as such, the investigator recommended the claim as not genuine one. The contract of insurance is Uberrima fides i.e contract of utmost good faith, where both the parties to the insurance contract are bound to disclose each and every fact correctly without any concealment and since the complainant has neither given the intimation of the theft of the insured vehicle within stipulated period nor he has co-operated the investigator nor has supplied the required document, so his claim is not maintainable. It is pleaded that opposite party Nos.1 to 3 reserved their right to file amended reply as and when the complainant supplied the required documents as he has concealed the true and material facts from them and this Commission. As such, he is not entitled for any relief from this Commission. That claim of the complainant is still premature as he has not supplied the required documents. That complicated questions of law and facts are involved. They require voluminous evidence, so the complaint cannot be decided in summary manner and only civil courts have jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The complainant is estopped to file the complaint by his own act and conducts. That amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant one. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. As such, it is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have reiterated their version as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Upon notice, opposite party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version and raising legal objection that the vehicle is hypoyhecated under it and it has right/charge on the vehicle. The complainant has availed finance of Rs.7,30,000/- from opposite party No.4 against loan agreement No.SLBTNDA 0226589 and at present huge amount is due against the complainant and while deciding the complaint, the interest of opposite party No.4 may kindly be protected and the appropriate order protecting the interest of opposite party No.4 may kindly be passed. On merits, opposite party No.4 has pleaded that the complaint does not relate to it rather the complaint relates to the other opposite parties and to be replied by them. In further written version, opposite party No.4 has controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence two affidavits namely Baljinder Singh and Satwinder Singh dated 12.11.2020 each, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2) and documents, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C10). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have tendered into evidence two affidavits namely Kiranjeet Singh Romana dated 16.12.2021, (Ex.OP1/1) and Ashwani Kumar dated 22.1.2021, (Ex.OP1/2) and documents, (Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/10). Opposite party No.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohinder Pal Singh dated 29.3.2022, (Ex.OP4/1) and document, (Ex.OP4/2). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one insurance policy bearing No.233200/31/2020/1523 valid from 4.7.2019 to 3.7.2020, (Ex.C3) for his TATA LPS 4018 truck bearing No.PB-03R-9971 from opposite party No.1. As per complainant, his truck was stolen by some unknown person on 30.12.2019 when it was parked outside his house in properly locked and safe condition. He gave intimation to the police in this regard on the same day. FIR No.0141 dated 30.12.2019, (Ex.C6) proves this fact. Thereafter he lodged the claim with opposite parties, but they did not reimburse his claim till date despite supply of documents. As per version of opposite party Nos.1 to 3, as per FIR, intimation regarding the theft has been given to the police after 4-5 days of its theft and as per record, it has been alleged that no intimation regarding the theft was given to opposite parties within stipulated period and after receipt of intimation regarding the theft, opposite parties deputed Mr.Kiranjit Singh Romana, Investigator to investigate the theft claim of insured vehicle, he submitted his report dated 3.1.2020, (Ex.OP1/3) with opposite party No.2 with the conclusion that despite all our efforts and meeting with claimant Baljinder Singh, he failed to submit the required documents, as such, the investigator recommended the claim as not genuine one. It has been observed from the record that the complainant has lodged the FIR on 30.12.2019 on the same day, when his truck was stolen and there is investigation report dated 3.1.2020, (Ex.OP1/3). The investigator has reported that he has issued the letter to ascertain documents from the complainant, which seems to be purely in genuine, as at one point of time, opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have given the contrary version that the claim was intimated with delay and at the same time, the investigation report dated 3.1.2020 reveals that the claim was duly intimated in time. There is one order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate which reveals that upon presentation of the untraced report, the complainant Baljinder Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that he is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police in that case and requested that this untraced report be sent back for the purpose of further investigation. It shows that the theft was genuine one. Moreover letter dated 6.8.2020, (OP1/6) and letter dated 23.12.2020, (Ex.OP1/8) were issued when the complainant got served legal notice dated 27.7.2020, (Ex.C7) that served to be afterthought. It has further been observed that after getting investigation report dated 3.1.2020, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not settled the claim of the complainant within stipulated period and they kept the claim open, which is also deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on their part. In view of what has been discussed above, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.20,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.3 and 4. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant as per their terms and conditions. Opposite party No.4 is at liberty to recover the loan amount from the complainant after settlement of his claim by opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite parties will be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 22-05-2024 (Priti Malhotra) President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
