Haryana

Ambala

CC/243/2019

Pawan Kumar Chugh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sachdeva

28 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  243 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   07.08.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :   28.01.2021.

 

Pawan Kumar Chugh, aged about 48 years, son of Shri Hans Raj, resident of House No.149, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Ambala City, Haryana.

                                                                                 …...Complainant.                                                           Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Bal Bhawan Road, Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City, Haryana, through its Manager/Branch Manager.

 

               ..…. Opposite Party.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following direction to it:-

1. To pay Rs.75,000/- i.e. total value of the vehicle in question, to the complainant.  
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay cost of Rs.11,000/-.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the resident of above mentioned address. Complainant was having a scooty (Honda Activa) white coloured bearing registration No.HR-01-AN-8577, insured with OP vide policy No.1101023118P103702314 valid from 13.06.2018 to 12.06.2019. On 29.06.2018, when the complainant had gone to Bansal Coaching Center, Prem Nagar Road, Ambala City on the said vehicle, where the son of the complainant used to attend the coaching classes and after dropping him there, the complainant parked his vehicle outside the center and went for his personal work and after about 40 minutes at about 8:20 P.M. when the complainant came back he did not find his vehicle. He searched the vehicle in question everywhere, but didn’t find the same. Finding no other alternative he lodged a complainant at 100 number to the police, on the same day. Complainant contacted the officials of OP, but the officials of the OP refused to entertain the complainant and told the complainant to lodge the FIR, regarding theft of the vehicle in question and only then they will entertain his case and will do the needful. On the advise of the officials of OP, he approached the police, where he got registered FIR No.315 dated 01.07.2018 under Section 379 IPC at PS Baldev Nagar. After receiving the copy of FIR and on completion of all the police formalities, complainant approached to the officials of the OP and submitted all the relevant documents to the OP as demanded by the officials of the OP for the claim of the above said vehicle, but the officials of OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 02.07.2019 to the OP and submitted all the relevant documents like copy of FIR, copy of untraceable report of police copy of insurance cover and policy, copy of driving licence of the complainant, but OP without any genuine reason rejected the claim of the complainant. Despite repeated requests OP did not pay any heed to the legitimate request of the complainant. The OP by not paying his genuine claim, has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared through counsel and has filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, not coming before the Forum with clean hands etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant neither filed any claim regarding the alleged theft of the vehicle in question i.e. Honda Activa bearing registration No.HR-01-AN-8577 nor intimated the OP about the alleged theft. Complainant only got issued a false and frivolous legal notice dated 02.07.2019. Complainant has tried to manipulate the facts and filed this false and frivolous complaint. Complainant never submitted any claim intimation or documents restricting the OP to investigate the case.  OP replied the legal notice on dated 11.07.2019. Complainant informed the OP through legal notice dated 02.07.32019, i.e. after a lapse of one year, while the policy terms expressly states that notice of loss or damage shall be given to the complainant immediately upon happening of any loss. Complainant also lodged the FIR on 01.07.2018 after a delay of two days. The policy is subject to various terms and conditions as stipulated therein:-

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and there-after the insured shall given all such information and assistance as the company shall require.” Complainant himself violated the terms & conditions of the policy, as such, no claim is payable to him. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP and the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C1 alongwith documents as Annexure C-2 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Shrija Jain, Assistant Manager, Authorised person and Signatory United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that during the subsistence of the policy, the scooty (Honda Activa) of the complainant got stolen on 29.06.2018. Complainant made efforts to search the same, but could not find. He informed officials of OP and also to the police by calling at 100 number about the theft of the vehicle in question, on the same day. This fact has duly been mentioned in FIR dated 01.07.2018 Annexure C-4 and this fact has not been negated by the police authorities. In spite of best efforts of the police authorities the Activa in question could not find. After getting the copy of the FIR and completion of all the formalities, he approached the OPs and submitted the claim. He also furnished the untrace report Annexure C-5.       In spite of receipt of all the documents the OP has not paid him the claim amount, which tantamounts to deficiency in service.

                   On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the OP submitted that as per condition No.1, the insured was to inform the insurance company in writing immediately after the occurrence of the incident and also to lodge the FIR, whereas the complainant has lodged the FIR with the police with the delay of 2 days and informed about the alleged theft of the vehicle to the insurance company on dated 02.07.2019, by way of legal notice i.e. after a lapse of one year. Since, there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore he is not entitled for any claim and information in this regard was given to the complainant vide reply dated 11.07.2019 to the legal notice dated 02.07.2019.  

6.                Admittedly, the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OP for the period for 13.06.2018 to 12.06.2019, vide insurance policy Annexure C-2. It is not disputed that the said vehicle got stolen on 29.06.2018. The OP refused to pay the claim amount vide letter dated 11.07.2019, Annexure C-8, i.e. reply to the legal notice dated 02.07.2019, on the ground that there is breach of condition No.1 of the policy, as the insured has to intimate regarding any loss of accident of the insured property immediately to the insurance company, but in this case the insured has never approached the insurance company with any sort of claim information. The complainant has contended that he informed the police authorities by calling at 100, on the same day i.e. 29.06.2018, when the vehicle in question got stolen and got registered the FIR with the police on 01.07.2019. Nothing contrary has been placed on record by the OP to controvert this contention of the complainant. It is to note that the OP has repudiate the claim only on the ground that information to it was not given immediately and there is breach of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. In the case of Gurshinder Singh Versus Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., which was decided by Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court on 24.01.2020, wherein it was held that the Consumer Protection Act aims at protecting interest of consumers and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. It is further held that when the insured has lodged the FIR immediately with the police, after the theft of the vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged the final report after the vehicle was not traced and when surveyor/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above referred case, we opined that OP has wrongly repudiated the claim and is liable to indemnify the complainant. From the policy document, it is evident that the IDV of the vehicle in question was Rs.39,000/-. Therefore, the OP is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant along with interest. OP is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation expenses.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.39,000/- i.e. the IDV of the vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 5% per annum w.e.f. 11.07.2019 i.e. the date of the repudiation of claim till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

8.                The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 28.01.2021

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)                      (Ruby Sharma)       (Neena Sandhu)

             Member                                   Member                President

                                                                                         DCDRC, Ambala