Haryana

Karnal

CC/46/2019

Sita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rakesh Bangia

04 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.46 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt. 29.01.2019

                                                        Date of decision 04.02.2021

1. Sita Devi wife of Arvind Yadav son of Ram Ji Yadav, resident of ward no.2, Vikas Nagar, Phoosgarh Road, Karnal.

2. Reena Devi daughter of late Shri Arvind Yadav and wife of Shri Mannu Kumar resident of village Alauli Khagaria (Bhiar)

3. Pinky Devi daughter of late Shri Arvind Yadav and wife of Shri Bablu Yadav resident of Ward no.7, Dumariya Razakpur, Begusarai (Bihar.

4. Deepak minor son of late Shri Arvind Yadav.

5. Gulshan minor son of late Arvind Yadav, both residents of ward no.2, Vikash Nagar, Phoosgarh road, Karnal. The complainant no.4 and 5 being minor through their mother Smt. Sita Devi as their natural guardian and next frind who has got no adverse interest to that of minors.

6. Urmila Devi wife of Ramji Yadav, resident of village Manjhaul Cheria Bariarpur, Begusarai (Bihar)

     …….Complainants

                                        Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Unchan Samana, Karnal through its Branch 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.Banjia Advocate for complainants.

                Shri Kiran Singh Advocate for opposite party.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that husband of complainant no.1 namely Shri Arvind Yadav (since deceased) purchased a E-Rickshaw bearing registration no.HR-45B-4145 for earning his livelihood and the same was insured with the opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP), vide cover note no.835047, valid from 11.12.2016 to 10.12.2017.

2.             The abovesaid vehicle of husband of complainant no.1 was stolen on 04.01.2017 and in this regard an FIR no.22 dated 10.01.2017 under section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Civil Lines Karnal. The matter was reported to the OP by the husband of complainant no.1 and unfortunately on 31.08.2017 he expired. The vehicle in question could not be traced and an untraced report was submitted by the police in the learned court of CJM Karnal. The complainants submitted all the requisite documents with the OP but till date no claim amount release by the OP. Thereafter, complainants visited the office of OP several times and requested for paying the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainants. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainants filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the insured whose name has been registered as legal person was not having effective driving licence as per term and conditions of the insurance policy in accordance with the provision of the rule (3) of the centre vehicle rule 1989 at the time of alleged theft of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainants have never applied for getting the name of the insured changed in the records of the OP even though life assured (husband of complainant no.1) died during the process of insurance claim regarding the alleged theft of the vehicle reported from the court complex Karnal. It is further pleaded that complainants have no legal authority to get the compensation of claim as per the law as they have neither submitted any LR certificate or any will of the deceased Arvind Yadav being the insurer registered with the insurance company. It is further pleaded that insurance of vehicle till date has not been got transferred as per the regulation of insurance act in the name of the complainants, so there is no legal right of the complainants to claim any compensation of the case. It is further pleaded that as per the term and condition of the insurance policy, the subrogation right as well as transfer of the vehicle in this case of the insurance company are not fulfilled as per the guideline of the stolen/alleged theft vehicles because there is no insurable interest of the complainants. It is further pleaded that the OP has written various letters to the insured address but the complainants did not comply with the requirements of the insurance company as per their letters. It is further pleaded that OP after repeated intimation letters to the insurer Arvind Yadav has requested to submit the documents like affective driving licence of the insurer, cancelled R.C, letter of undertaking, letter of subrogation, letter of indemnity or letter of both original case and the same intimation has been endorsed by the complainants but the same were never submitted by either the insurer or his LRs and after complying with the terms of the insurance policy in claim cases the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the insurer as per law. It is further pleaded that mere issuing of untraceable report or the investigation report does not entitle the insurer Arvind Yadav or his legal heir after his death to claim the insured amount from the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Sita Devi Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Rubi daughter of Arvind Kumar Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Urmila Devi mother of Arvind Kumar Ex.CW3/A, affidavit of Pinky daughter of Arvind Kumar Ex.CW4/A, affidavit of Reena daughter of Arvind Kumar Ex.CW5/A, copy of Aadhar card of Sita Devi Ex.C1, insurance cover note Ex.C2, copy of R.C. Ex.C3, application to police Ex.C4, copy of FIR Ex.C5, untraced report Ex.C6, court order regarding untraced report Ex.C7, application to the Registration Authority Ex.C8, application to Arvind Yadav (deceased) Ex.C9, Aadhar card of Arvind Yadav Ex.C10,  death certificate of Arvind Yadav Ex.C11, medical certificate of Arvind Yadav Ex.C12, Post mortem report of Arvind Yadav Ex.C13, admission file of Arvind Yadav Ex.C14, referred slip of Arvind Yadav Ex.C15, receipt of vehicle Ex.C16, Aadhar card of Urmila Ex.C17, Aadhar card of Gulshan Ex.C18, Aadhar card of Deepak Ex.C19, Aadhar card of Pinky Devi Ex.C20, Aadhar card of Rubi Devi Ex.C21, Aadhar card of Reena Devi Ex.C22 and closed the evidence on 16.12.2019, vide separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Mahavir Singh Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 28.02.2020, vide separate statement.

6.             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.

7.             The case of the complainants in brief, is that, the vehicle in question was got insured with the OPs. On 04.01.2017 the said vehicle was stolen and in this regard an FIR was got registered. The said vehicle has not been recovered and in this regard untraceable report was submitted by Police in the court. Complainants also sent the intimation to the OP in this regard and made so many requests to OP for releasing of his genuine claim regarding the vehicle in question but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainants.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief, is that the insured whose name has been registered as legal person was not having effective driving licence as per term and conditions of the insurance policy. The subrogation right as well as transfer of the vehicle in the present case are not fulfilled as per the guideline of the stolen/alleged theft vehicles because there is no insurable interest of the complainants. OP after repeated intimation letters to the insurer Arvind Yadav has requested to submit the documents like affective driving licence of the insurer, cancelled R.C, letter of undertaking, letter of subrogation, letter of indemnity or letter of both original case and the same intimation has been endorsed by the complainants but the same were never submitted by either the insurer or his LRs and after complying with the terms of the insurance policy in claim cases the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the insurer as per law.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that husband of the complainant namely Arvind Yadav (since deceased) had got insured his Auto rickshaw with the OP. The said auto rickshaw was stolen on 04.01.2017. Complainant intimated to the OP and got lodged the FIR. Complainant also submitted untraced report to the OP for reimbursement of the claim but OP repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant without any rhyme and reason. He further argued that at the time of alleged incident, the insured was having a valid licence but same was misplaced during the process of post-mortem of the dead body of the insured Arvind Yadav. He lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP argued that at the time of incident the insured was not having a effective licence as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, the insured violated the terms and conditions. The insurance of the vehicle till date has not been got transferred in the name of the complainants as per the regulations. The complainants failed to submit the required documents and claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainants was repudiated by the OP on the ground that insured Arvind Yadav was not having effective licence at the time of incident.

12.           The incident took place on 04.01.2017 and the insured namely Arvind Yadav expired on 01.08.2017. It is not the case of the OP that insured had not intimated to the OP with regard to the incident. The complainants got lodged FIR Ex.C5 regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. The case was thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Agency, but vehicle in question was not traced and ultimately, police of concerned police station submitted untrace report Ex.C6 and same was accepted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, vide order Ex.C7.

13.           During the course of evidence, complainant Sita Devi, tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, her daughter Rubi tendered affidavit Ex.CW2/A, her mother-in-law Urmila Devi tendered affidavit Ex.CW3/A, her daughter Pinki tendered affidavit Ex.CW4/A, her daughter Reena tendered affidavit Ex.CW5/A and also tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22. On the other hand, OP tendered in its evidence only affidavit of Mahavir Singh, Sr.D.M. Ex.OP1/A and no other documents has been placed on file.

14.           The claim of the complainants was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the complainants have not submitted the effective licence of the insured and other required documents. There is nothing on the file to prove the plea of the OP. There is no document on record to prove the fact that OP ever demanded the licence as well as other documents from the owner during his life time and from the complainants after the death of owner of the vehicle. It is the complainants who have lodged their claim for claiming insurance amount, then there is no reason with the complainants not to submit the documents if demanded by the OP. It is not the case that Arvind Yadav (since deceased) was himself plying the vehicle in question, then the question, that the deceased was not having effective driving licnece does not arise at all. Further, the vehicle in question was stolen while it was parked in the parking. The OP even failed to place on record repudiation letter whereby the claim lodged by the husband of the complainant no.1 was repudiated.  Only by stating in its written version that the claim lodged by the husband of complainant no.1 has been repudiated for not submitting effective driving licence and other requisite documents is no ground of repudiation the claim.  Thus, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP in a casual way. Hence, the act of OP amounts to deficiency in service while repudiating the claim of the complainants, which is otherwise proved genuine one.

15.           As per cover-note Ex.C2, the IDV of the vehicle in question is Rs.92,150/-, thus, the complainants are entitled for the same alongwith compensation and litigation expenses etc.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.92,150/- insured declared value (IDV) amount to the complainants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainants are also directed to transfer the vehicle in question in the name of OP. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:04.02.2021

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member