Haryana

Kaithal

158/21

Amrender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Aseem Sharma

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.158/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.07.2021.

                                                     Date of decision: 13.04.2023.

Amrender Singh Khara S/o Sh. Jaspal Singh R/o Firojpur Road, near Girl School, Village Siwan, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Head Office A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, DO2, Chandigarh SCO-48-49, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh-160017.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, near IDBI Bank, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Aseem Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Amrender Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured his vehicle car bearing registration No.HR08Q-1000 with the OPs vide policy No.231200/31/2019/4965 valid for the period w.e.f. 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020 for the insured amount of Rs.7,46,954/- and complainant paid Rs.23,642/- to the OPs.  It is alleged that on 09.03.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant left the above-said vehicle outside G.S.S.S. School, Siwan and was going to Village Kakhera, Pabsar, Kakyour Majra etc. with Pawan Sharma on the vehicle of Vivek Namberdar to attend the convincing meeting of school.  When the complainant returned to Village Siwan, then he found that the vehicle was not present there and cash amount of Rs.1,66,000/- alongwith documents were kept in the dickey of above-said vehicle.  The complainant got lodged a FIR No.0032 dt. 10.03.2020 under Section 379 IPC in P.S.Siwan regarding theft of said vehicle.  The untraced report was submitted by the policy and the same was accepted by the court of J.M.I.C. Kaithal on 18.12.2020.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant did not comply with the necessary requirements of insurance company before final settlement of claim.  Complainant has failed to submit untraced report accepted by Hon’ble Court of concerned Ilaqa Magistrate.  The vehicle in question is still hypothecated with HDFC Bank.  But the complainant is failed to get removed the endorsement of Hypothecation with HDFC Bank from the registration certificate by concerned Registration Authority and further failed to complete all other formalities despite repeated requests and demand.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle car bearing registration No.HR08Q-1000 with the OPs vide policy No.231200/31/2019/4965 valid for the period w.e.f. 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020 for the insured sum of Rs.7,46,954/- and complainant paid Rs.23,642/- to the OPs.  It is argued that on 09.03.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant left the above-said vehicle outside G.S.S.S. School, Siwan and was going to Village Kakhera, Pabsar, Kakyour Majra etc. with Pawan Sharma on the vehicle of Vivek Namberdar to attend the convincing meeting of school.  When the complainant returned to Village Siwan, then he found that the vehicle was not present there and cash amount of Rs.1,66,000/- alongwith documents were kept in the dickey of above-said vehicle.  The complainant got lodged a FIR No.0032 dt. 10.03.2020 under Section 379 IPC in P.S.Siwan regarding theft of said vehicle.  The untraced report was submitted by the policy and the same was accepted by the court of J.M.I.C. Kaithal on 18.12.2020.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant did not comply with the necessary requirements of insurance company before final settlement of claim.  It is argued that the complainant has failed to submit untraced report accepted by Hon’ble Court of concerned Ilaqa Magistrate.  The vehicle in question is still hypothecated with HDFC Bank.  But the complainant is failed to get removed the endorsement of Hypothecation with HDFC Bank from the registration certificate by concerned Registration Authority and further failed to complete all other formalities despite repeated requests and demand.  

8.             The main objection of ld. Counsel for the Ops is that the complainant has failed to submit final untraced report under Section 173 duly certified by the court and he has drawn our attention towards the letter dt. 14.07.2021 written by the OPs to the complainant as per Annexure-R2 vide which complainant was requested to submit final untraceable report under Section 173 duly certified by the court.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on file certified copy of order dt. 18.12.2020 vide which final untraced report was accepted by the court of Sh. Arun Dabla, the then J.M.I.C.,Kaithal.  It means that the vehicle in question was stolen by unknown person and the police could not trace out the same.  Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops have wrongly refused to pay the claim of complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.                                  

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.7,46,954/- to the complainant as I.D.V. of the vehicle as per policy-Annexure-C2 within 45 days from today.  However, the complainant is directed to submit the subrogation letter and cancellation of ownership of vehicle in question obtained from the concerned Registering Authority within 30 days with the Ops.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that if the OPs are failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.7,46,954/- to the complainant within stipulated period, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization. 

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs 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 both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:13.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.