BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.
Complaint No. 32 of 2017
Date of Instt.: 14.2.2017
Date of Decision: 8.1.2021
Gopal (since deceased) through legal heirs (i) Smt. Kamlesh Devi widow (since deceased) through legal heirs (i) Sonu Sharma (ii) Naveen Kumar son of late Sh. Gopal son of sh. Puranmal, resident of village Siwara, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
Complainant
Versus
1. United India Assurance Company Ltd. Micro Office, Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Assurance Company Ltd having its office at Near D-Park, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak through its Regional Manager.
Complaint under the Consumer Protection
Act.
Before: Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: Sh. Anil Jangra, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Sharma, Adv. for opposite parties.
ORDER:-
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present complaint was initially filed by Gopal son of Sh. Puranmal, resident of village Siwara, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani and during the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant had died and thereafter, amended title was filed by counsel for complainant and the legal heirs of deceased Gopal were impleaded as necessary party i.e. Smt. Kamlesh Devi widow of Gopal, Sonu Sharma and Naveen Kumar sons of late Gopal but during the pendency of the complaint, the one of legal heir Smt Kamlesh Devi widow of Gopal was also died. In that situation, an another amended title has been filed and now the present complaint is being pursued through the only two legal heirs namely Sonu Sharma and Naveen Kumar.
In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was/is owner of vehicle Car TATA Indigo bearing registration No.HR-16J/4452, Engine No. ZYP63997, Chasis No. AWG34762, Model 2010 which was insured with the opposite party No.1 vide policy No.1112823114P146236632, valid from 09.05.2014 to 08.05.2015 and had paid all the policy charges in the office of respondent No. 1 at the time of purchasing the policy. On 19.02.2015 Sonu Sharma son of Sh. Gopal, r/o village Siwara went to the house of his father-in-law namely Satyawan Sharma, r/o S-2/394 Shalimar Garden, X-1, Sahibabad, Gaziabad and parked his above said Car Tata Indigo in front of his father-in-law’s house. It is further alleged that on the next morning when he saw his car, then found it missing from there. Thereafter, they personally searched for the same and enquired for whereabouts but the same could not be known as the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons and when he did not found it, then he lodged a FIR No. 251 dt. 14.03.2015 u/s 379 of IPC in P.S. Sahibabad, District Gaziabad (U.P.) against the unknown person. It is further alleged that he also informed to opposite party immediately vide claim No. 111282/31/2015 and submitted all the documents for disbursement of claim amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- i.e. cost of his vehicle but the opposite party did not disburse his claim amount of insurance of the said vehicle. Thereafter, the surveyor of the respondent company visited the house of complainant and assured that he will immediately release the amount of compensation of claim and obtained signatures on some blank and printed papers but amount of claim of his stolen vehicle was not disbursed. After some time, he went the office of the opposite parties many times for obtaining the claim of his vehicle but respondents did not pay any heed to his request, due to which he suffered mental harassment and worries etc. It is averred that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and therefore, he is entitled to get Rs. 2,70,000/- as insured amount of vehicle along with compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Forum may found deem fit and proper and accordingly, prays for the same.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed the written statement taking some preliminary objections viz. that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and he has no cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint etc and averred that the competent authority has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that there was delay of 22 days in filing the FIR and 26 days delay in giving intimation to the insurance company. The acts of the insured amounts to violation of the terms and conditions No.1 of the policy cover, which is reproduced as under:-
“ Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall be given immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”.
Delay in intimation of the insurance company is fatal, as in the meantime, the vehicle could have traveled at a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and also sold out to scrap dealer and may have been disposed off. It is further alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complainant has no legal right to seek any insurance claim from the company. It is also submitted that the present complaint is absolutely wrong and there is no deficiency in service while settling the claim. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 2,70,000/- as insurance claim and Rs. 1 lac on account of mental harassment and worries. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2019. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R9 and closed the evidence on 17.09.2019. The complainant again submitted two more documents i.e. Ex. CA and CB in the present complaint in the additional evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the facts of the case file very carefully and minutely, we have observed that the theft of car in question of complainant bearing registration No. HR-16J/4452 took place in the intervening night of 19/20.2.2015 and information in this respect was given to the police authorities and FIR No. 251 got lodged u/s 379 of IPC in P.S. Sahibabad, District Gaziabad on dated 14.3.2015 i.e. after about 22 days and it seemed that that there was a delay of intimation to the insurance company also. But during the pendency of present complaint and at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of FIR and an application written by the complainant’s son. These both documents are attested by the concerned police authority, which are Ex. C-A and C-B. We have also perused the investigation report placed on record by the respondents insurance company (Ex. R-3). This investigation has been conducted by Shubh Narain Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor vide his report No. SNS/UIIC/11282/7369 dated 28.8.2015. We have minutely perused the investigation report and on page No. 2 of said report, it has been admitted by the Investigator that the vehicle has been stolen on dated 19.2.2015 and regarding this incident, intimation of theft of vehicle has been given on 22.2.2015 at P.S. Shalimar and lodged the complaint. This fact has been verified under the investigation of Surveyor and he also gathered information from the neighbors of complainant from where the vehicle of complainant was stolen. It has been categorically mentioned in this investigation report that the complainant lodged the complaint on 22.2.2015 but FIR was written on 14.3.2015 vide FIR No. 251/2015 under section 379 IPC. We have minutely perused the application Ex. C-B. On the said application, the date of written of complaint is mentioned as 20.2.2015 and the concerned police authorities endorsed the same on 22.2.2015, meaning thereby there is a delay of lodging the complaint as well as FIR on behalf of concerned police authority and not on behalf of complainant. After considering all the facts and circumstances and considering the copy of complaint dated 20.2.2015 (Annexure C-4/Annexure C-B) received by the police authority Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, Gaziabad (UP) on 22.2.2015, we come into conclusion that there is no delay in lodging of FIR on behalf of complainant. The act of the police authority was beyond the control of complainant. In this way, if there is deficiency in service on behalf of the State for lodging the FIR, in that situation, it cannot be stated that the complainant himself was negligent. It is crystal clear that information of theft has been given by the complainant well within time. It is very strange when the survey and investigation report has been submitted by the surveyor with the insurance company and this fact has been mentioned in the survey report that the complaint has been lodged by the complainant with the police authority well within time, then how the insurance company repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that the FIR was got lodged by the complainant with delay of 26 days. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the claim of his vehicle. The perusal of insurance policy (Annexure C-1) itself shows that IDV of vehicle was Rs. 2,70,000/-. Therefore, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondents to make the payment of IDV (insured declared value) of Rs. 2,70,000/-to the legal heirs of deceased complainant (as per policy Annexure C-1) along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 20.2.2015 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to submission of an affidavit by the legal heirs of complainant (since deceased) with the respondents regarding ownership of vehicle in question of company mentioning therein that if the vehicle is found at any later stage, the company shall have all the rights of ownership. It is made clear that the respondents shall be bound to release the claim amount to the legal heirs of complainant in equal shares, within one month after submission of such affidavit. The respondents are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-to the complainant on account of compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and also a sum of Rs. 5000/-as litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
Dated: - 8.1.2021
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
