Advocate Rahul Gandhi for the complainant
Advocate Shyam Maheshwari for the Opponent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Dated-9th May, 2014
This complaint is filed by consumer against Opponent for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is resident of Gultekdi, Market Yard, Pune 411 037. Opponent is the Insurance Company. Complainant had purchased brand new Tata Truck LPT 2515 for Rs.12,46,444/-. Said truck was insured with the Opponent for the period 4/7/2008 to 3/7/2009. Complainant has paid premium of Rs.36,463/- on 4/7/2008 by cheque. Shri. Talib-Driver of the complainant, took goods from Pune to Hasanpur, Haryana in the said truck. The goods were unloaded at the local market on 13/4/2009. Complainant has directed the driver to take the truck to New Delhi. On 14/4/2009 Shri. Talib called another driver with the complainant, Shri. Hakim, that the truck had gone missing. Shri. Hakim immediately informed the complainant about the same on that day itself. Complainant had intimated this fact to the Opponents and lodged F.I.R. on 14/4/2009. Opponent has called various documents from time to time, but ultimately repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that, the original driving license was not produced. Complainant had issued notice to the Opponents. But it was falsely replied. Hence, complainant has filed present complaint. Complainant has asked price of the truck Rs.12,96,750/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.2500/- as notice charges and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the complaint. Total claim of the complainant is Rs.13,64,250/-.
[2] Opponents resisted the claim by filing written version in which it has denied the contents of the complaint. It is specifically denied that, the Opponents have caused deficiency in service. According to the Insurance Company, insurance policy is a contract and terms and conditions of the policy should be strictly followed. As the complainant has failed to produce original driving license, his claim was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company. Opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and hearing argument of both counsel, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has established that, the Opponents have caused deficiency in service by repudiating the insurance claim ? | In the affirmative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons
As to the point Nos. 1 and 2-
[4] Undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that, the complainant is the owner of the truck in question and it was insured with the Opponent for the relevant period i.e. from 4/7/2008 to 3/7/2009. It is also not seriously disputed by the Opponents that the theft of the truck was committed. In order to support this fact, complainant has produced copy of F.I.R. Insurance company has not investigated the matter. But it reveals from the repudiation letter that the claim was repudiated only on the ground of failure to produce the original driving license. It is well settled law that, in case of theft of vehicle the breach of conditions has no relevancy. There is no nexus between the driving license and theft of the vehicle. Hence, it is the considered opinion of this Forum that, Opponent has wrongly repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 3409 of 2008 between National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shri. Nitin Khandelwal, dated 8/5/2008 that,in case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.The insurance policy is disclosing that the value of the vehicle is Rs.12,96,750/-. Complainant has claimed the same in the complaint. Hence, complainant is entitled to receive that much amount from the Opponents. Complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- on the ground of compensation for physical and mental sufferings and cost of the litigation.
In the light of the above discussion Forum answers the points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponents have caused deficiency in serving by wrongly repudiating the insurance claim.
3. Opponent –Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at New Delhi and Branch at Pune are jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.12,96,750/- [Rupees Twelve Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only] to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Opponent –Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at New Delhi and Branch at Pune are jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] towards compensation for physical and mental torture and cost of the litigation to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. If the amount is not paid or deposited within the stipulated period, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 12/09/2012 till its realization.
6. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of Order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date – 09/05/2014
