Haryana

Karnal

CC/29/2020

Angrez Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Mehta

08 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 29 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.15.01.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 08.04.2021

 

Angrej Singh son of Shri Sher Singh Verma, resident of House no.382/16 Gali no.1, near Mehta Jewellers, Moti Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd. Divisional office, SCO no.87-88, Mahila Ashram Complex, Behind Bus Stand, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.      

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present: Shri R.K. Mehta counsel for complainant.

                Shri R.S. Mann counsel for opposite party.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of motorcycle hero Honda bearing registration no.HR-05AC-3910 make splendor Plus. The said motorcycle was insured with the opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP), vide policy no.261300/31/2017/1193, valid from 17.03.2017 to 16.03.2018. The said motorcycle was stolen on 27.08.2017 by some unknown person. Complainant lodged the FIR no.697 with Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal under section 379 in this regard. Intimation was also sent to the OP regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. Complainant lodged the claim with the OP, vide claim no.261300/31/2018/000024 and submitted all the documents as required by the OP for settlement of the claim. The untraced report of the motorcycle in question was filed by the police and learned court of Miss Shikha CJM has accepted the same, vide order dated 22.05.2018. The complainant submitted the untraced in the office of OP. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP so many times and requested for settlement of the claim but OP has been lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 27.11.2019 on the ground that the statement of the complainant dated 13.09.2017 and 01.10.2019 did not match and OP has further alleged that complainant has no insurable interest and concealed the facts. The repudiation letter dated 27.11.2019 is illegal and based upon presumption, conjecture and surmises. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is not the owner of the motorcycle in question, as he has already sold away the same to Shri Kuldeep Verma son of Shri Raj Bahadur. Shri Kuldeep Verma was in possession of said motorcycle at the time of alleged theft. Said Kuldeep Verma had given in writing his statement dated 11.09.2017 to Shri Gujral, Investigator to the effect that he is in possession of the said motorcycle for the last 2 years prior to the theft of the motorcycle i.e. 27.08.2017. The complainant had no legal right to claim the compensation of the theft of the motorcycle in question as he has already parted with the possession and ownership of the motorcycle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, repudiation letter dated 27.11.2019 Ex.C1, motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C2, untraced report Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipt Ex.C5 and copy of FIR Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Madan Divisional Manager Ex.OP1, copy of FIR Ex.OP2, statement of Angrej Singh Ex.OP3 and statement of Kuldeep Singh Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 22.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant was registered owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR05AC-3910, make Splendor Plus, which was duly insured with the OP. On 27.08.2017, the said motorcycle was got stolen by some unknown person and in this regard, an FIR was got registered in the police station Civil Lines, Karnal.  Intimation of theft was also given to OP and lodged a claim but the OP repudiated the claim on false grounds, despite completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant vide letter dated 27.11.2019, other claim of the complainant is genuine one. Kuldeep Verma and Angrej Singh complainant never suffered alleged statement before the surveyor of OP. The surveyor of OP had obtained the signatures of the two above persons on blank papers and same might be converted into the alleged statement. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint. 

7.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP argued that complainant is not owner of the motorcycle in question as the same has already been sold by him to Kuldeep Verma and this fact is evident from the statement of Kuldeep Verma, wherein he has specifically stated that he is in possession of the motorcycle from the last 2 years. He further argued that the statement of the complainant dated 13.09.2017 and 01.10.2019, were contradictory in nature. Hence, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question has stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also an admitted fact that an FIR Ex.C6/ Ex.OP2 with regard to theft was got lodged and intimation was also given to the OP. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question had not been traced out during investigation and ultimately, police submitted untraced report, which was accepted by learned Illaqa Magistrate, vide order dated 22.05.2018 Ex.C3 but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 27.11.2019 Ex.C1 on the following grounds:-

“In the above said case, as per claim file vehicle was stolen on 27.08.2017. However, during investigation your statement dated 13.09.2017 was got recorded and it has been found that at the time of theft, the vehicle in question was used by your cousin brother since last two years and the vehicle was also used by your cousin brother at the time of theft and your second statement dated 01.10.2019 not match with your previous statement.” 

9.             The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that vehicle in question was being used by the cousin of the complainant for the last two years. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of theft. It is also admitted that the insurance policy was also in the name of the complainant at that time. There is no logic behind repudiating the claim of the complainant by OP if vehicle is being used by any person who is having valid driving licence at the time of incident.  It is not the case of the OP that the cousin of the complainant was not having a valid driving licence at the time of incident. Moreover, there is nothing on file to prove that the complainant had violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service while repudiating the claim of the complainant, which is otherwise proved genuine one. 

10.           As per the insurance policy Ex.C2, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.22000/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, and litigation expenses, etc. 

11.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.22,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation of claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.04.2021                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

      Member                               Member