Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/364

Dr. Jyoti - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Atul Gupta

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      364

Date of Institution:  19.12.2016

Date of Decision :   12.06.2017

 

Dr. Jyoti aged about 41 years, w/o Vikas Soni, s/o Sh Durga Dass Soni, r/o House No. 51, Adarsh Nagar, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                                                                    ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Near Old Grain Market, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Near Jublee Cinema, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                                                                            .......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Deep Chand Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.51,690/- on account of loss of insured vehicle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2                                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one new Honda Active from M/s Gyan Motors Pvt Ltd, Faridkot on 22.07.2013 for Rs.51,690/- and got insured the same with OPs vide policy no.233790/31/2014/607 valid from 22.7.2013 till the midnight of 21.07.2014. It is submitted that during the subsistence of insurance period, insured vehicle of complainant was stolen by someone on 4.03.2014 when it was parked by her husband outside his friend’s house in Street No. 8 (L) at Dogar Basti. Both complainant and her husband did their best to search the vehicle but all in vain. They got recorded report regarding theft of her vehicle in Police Station, City Faridkot and Police registered FIR regarding this on 7.03.2014. Ld Counsel for complainant submitted that just after next date of occurrence of theft, complainant duly intimated OPs regarding this incident. Police tried to search the Activa of complainant, but could not succeed and ultimately on 23.11.2014, Police gave untraceable report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C before ld Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, who vide order dated 22.12.2015 accepted the same. Thereafter, complainant submitted all the documents received from CJM, Faridkot to OPs and requested OPs to  pay the claim for her vehicle, but Ops paid no heed to hear her requests. On 10.06.2014, OPs served a registered letter to complainant seeking documents, which were supplied by complainant to them and complainant also completed all the other formalities as per directions of OPs. On 25.07.2016, complainant served a legal notice to OPs wherein again requested them to make payment of insurance claim on account of theft of her vehicle, but all in vain. Complainant paid many visits to the office of OPs and also made many requests to process but to no effect. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainants for which she has prayed for directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.51,690/- on account of loss of insured vehicle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                       On receipt of the notice, OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has no right to file the present complaint and she has not completed all the formalities required for payment of compensation and thus, complaint is premature.  It is asserted that vide letter dt 9.12.2016, OPs asked complainant to complete the formality of transferring the RC of scooter in the name of OPs and to give the letter of subrogation and letter of undertaking, but instead of completing all these formalities, she filed the present complaint without any reason. Ops are still ready to pay compensation for loss of her vehicle. However, on merits Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that complainant duly intimated them regarding incident of theft. It is averred that complainant delivered the copy of untraced report of her vehicle on 29.07.2016 and Motor Claim Form was submitted to answering OPs on 27.09.2016 and on receiving the same and doing requisite enquiries, Ops vide letter dt 9.12.2016, called upon complainant to fulfil requisite formalities, but complainant did not do so. OPs issued letters dated 6.6.2014, 10.06.2014, 15.12.2014, 13.05.2015 and 26.07.2016 to complainant requiring her to complete the necessary formalities. She completed some and her case was persuaded and vide letter dated 9.12.2016, she was again called upon to complete the remaining formalities, but she failed to do so. It is further averred that Ops never denied complainant the payment of compensation, but she has wrongly filed the present complaint to harass them. They are ready to make payment of insurance claim subject to fulfilment of remaining formalities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations levelled by complainant have also been denied being wrong and incorrect.

5                    Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case.  Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-17 and then, closed his evidence.

6                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Ashwani Kumar, Divisional Manager Ex OP-1 and documents Ex Op-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the record placed on file.

8                   Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased one new Honda Active from M/s Gyan Motors Pvt Ltd, Faridkot on 22.07.2013 for Rs.51,690/- and got insured the same with OPs vide Insurance Policy valid from 22.7.2013 to 21.07.2014. It is submitted that during the subsistence of insurance period on 4.03.2014, insured vehicle of complainant was stolen by someone when it was parked by her husband outside his friend’s house in Street No. 8 (L) at Dogar Basti. Both complainant and her husband did their best to search the vehicle but all in vain. They got recorded report regarding theft of her vehicle in Police Station, City Faridkot and Police registered FIR regarding this on 7.03.2014. Ld Counsel for complainant submitted that just after next date of occurrence of theft, complainant duly intimated OPs regarding this incident. Police tried to search the Activa of complainant, but could not succeed and ultimately on 23.11.2014, Police gave untraceable report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C before ld Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, who vide order dated 22.12.2015 accepted the

same. Thereafter, complainant submitted all the documents received from the office of CJM, Faridkot to OPs and requested to pay the insurance claim for her vehicle, but Ops paid no heed to her requests. On 10.06.2014, OPs served a registered letter to complainant seeking documents, which were supplied by complainant to them and complainant also completed all the other formalities as per directions of OPs. On 25.07.2016, complainant served a legal notice to OPs wherein again requested them to make payment of insurance claim on account of theft of her vehicle, but all in vain. Despite repeated requests to Ops to process the claim, Ops did not paid any compensation on account of theft of vehicle as insurance claim. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                            To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for Ops asserted before the Forum that complainant has no right to file the present complaint as she has not completed all the formalities required for payment of compensation and thus, complaint is premature.  It is averred that vide letter dt 9.12.2016, OPs asked complainant to complete the formality of transferring the RC of scooter in the name of OPs and to give the letter of subrogation and letter of undertaking to OPs, but instead of completing all these formalities, she filed the present complaint without any reason. Ops are still ready to pay compensation for loss of her vehicle.  They have denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that complainant duly intimated them regarding incident of theft. It is averred that complainant delivered the copy of untraced report of her vehicle on 29.07.2016 and Motor Claim Form was submitted to answering OPs on 27.09.2016 and on receiving the same and doing requisite enquiries, Ops vide letter dt 9.12.2016, called upon complainant to fulfil requisite formalities, but she did not do so. OPs issued letters dated 6.6.2014, 10.06.2014, 15.12.2014, 13.05.2015 and 26.07.2016 to complainant requiring her to complete the necessary formalities. She completed some and her case was persuaded and vide letter dated 9.12.2016, she was again called upon to complete the remaining formalities, but she failed to do so. It is further averred that Ops never denied complainant the payment of compensation, but she has wrongly filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations levelled by complainant have also been denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

10                                       From the careful perusal of record and going through the evidence and documents placed on file, it is observed that case of the complainant is that her insured vehicle was stolen by someone during the validity of insurance period. she duly intimated Ops and also got recorded FIR to this effect. Police also submitted Untraceable report under section 173 of Cr.P.C, which was duly accepted the CJM, Faridkot. Thereafter, complainant submitted all the documents as per instructions of Ops to them to obtain insurance claim for the loss on account of theft, but Ops did not make payment of insurance claim on false allegations on incomplete formalities. In reply, Ops stress mainly on the point that that there are certain formalities, which complainant is required to fulfil and thereafter, they are ready to make payment on account of insurance claim for the lost vehicle. It is made out that there is no dispute between complainant and Opposite parties regarding purchase or insurance of vehicle in question. It is also not disputed that complainant did not intimate them, rather they are themselves admitting that due intimation regarding theft of vehicle was given by complainant to them. There is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops for insisting on those formalities, which are already completed by complainant as complainant has already supplied them with all the documents required by them.

11                           Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant immediately gave intimation regarding the incident to Ops and submitted all the required documents to Ops within time and no such document or formality is remaining. The Ops intentionally delayed the payment of claim to complainant and got monitory benefit by retaining the amount of claim. As per guidelines of IRDA, the Insurance Companies have to decide the every claim within a period of three months from the date of its intimation and they cannot take more than six months even in special circumstances and in present case, the Ops have not settled the claim of complainant even after passing of about 3½ years and complainant is also entitled for interest and compensation alongwith insurance value of the vehicle from the date of intimation till the date of final realization. Ld Counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of citation in cc no.86 of 2015, titled as Phoenix Comtrade Pvt Ltd Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14-Insurance Claim-Interest-Delay in payment of insurance claim-Held-Since the insurer has utilized the aforesaid amount, the complainant is also entitled to an appropriate interest on that amount-As per the guidelines issued by IRDA, the maximum period of six months from the date of the lodgement of complaint is available to the insurer for payment of the claim. He has further placed reliance on citation in First Appeal No.215 of 2015 with First Appeal No. 230 of 2015 dated 30.09.2015 in case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Jaswant Rai Verma with Jaswant Rai Verma Vs United India Insurance Company Limited, wherein Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T, Chandigarh observed that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2 (1) (g) Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002-Insurance Claim-theft of vehicle-Investigator appointed by Insurance Company – Untraced report not filed by Police – State Commission held that as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002, in special circumstances of the case, the Surveyor could take six months for submission of his report, from the date of his appointment – Even on receipt of untraced report on 11.12.2014 opposite party did not decide the claim – this amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by OP – The District Forum, erred in awarding interest @ 12% per anum on the IDV of the vehicle from the date of lodging the claim – It should have awarded after six months from the date of lodging the claim by the complainant – thus impugned order needs modification.

12                                 From the above discussion and keeping in view the case law produced by complainant, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving her case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.45,900/- IDV of vehicle on account of insurance claim of complainant alongwith interest from 5.09.2014 till final realization i.e after six months from the date of intimation of theft of vehicle to Ops. Ops are further directed to give Rs.8000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Complainant shall transfer the certificate of registration in the name of Ops and shall also execute other required papers. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 12.06.2017                 

 

                             Member                   President

                                          (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)