Haryana

Ambala

CC/41/2013

M/S Hitech Associates - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sachdeva

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                     Complaint Case No.   : 41 of 2013

          Date of Institution      : 26.02.2013

                     Date of Decision        : 29.07.2016

M/s Hiteck Associates, Naraingarh Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City through its Proprietor/Partner.

                                                                                                                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                                                                        Versus

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Bal Bhawan Road,

Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Vig, Adv. counsel for OP.

ORDER.

                        Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant contending therein that Swift car bearing regn. No.HR01X-5151 owned by complainant firm was insured with OP Insurance Company w.e.f. 11.03.2012 to 10.03.2013 vide policy  bearing no.1101023111P002237279 and during this period, the car was being driven by Paras Chhabra who parked it on 13.03.2012 behind the back side of P.V.R. GG-1 Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi (a parking place) wherefrom the car in question was stolen. FIR No.70 dated 16.03.2012 was lodged in this regard with Police Station, Vikas Puri, District West Delhi. Thereafter, complainant lodged a claim with the OP who did not decide the same which as per complainant is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Op since as per terms & conditions of the insurance policy, OP was legally bound to  make the payment to the complainant. So, a legal notice was served upon the OP but of no avail. Thus the complainant has contended that he has been harassed mentally and physically at the hands of OP.  Hence, the complainant has preferred the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, no deficiency in service on their part. Further it has been submitted that the complainant informed the OP insurance company regarding theft of the Swift Car no.HR01X-5151 on 11.04.2012 though the same was stolen on 13.03.2012. OP further urged that  they wrote a letter dated 26.05.2013 to the complainant to show any receipt of toll tax, petrol filling cash memo or any other proof to confirm but till today the complainant failed to do so. Thereafter, one more letter dated 18.06.2013 was also issued to him to clarify the same regarding loss of vehicle but no response and thus OP rightly, legally  & validly repudiated the claim of the complainant which was duly informed to him.  Besides it, OP also urged that  the car was parked on 13.03.2012 behind the back side of PVR, GGI Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi without taking steps of safety which was open invitation  to theft to all and sundry because now-a-days with little know how vehicle can be plied /opened even though locked.   As such, the Op has contended that there is no deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his contention, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Sushil Chhabra, proprietor of complainant firm as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Ajay Sareen, Assistant Manager as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. It is an admitted fact on record that the vehicle in question was insured with OP insurance company for the period effective from 11.03.2012 to 10.03.2013 and was stolen as parked at back side of PVR GG1 Block Vikaspuri, West Delhi during the period from 13.03.2012 to 16.03.2012 as confirmed from the contents of FIR (Annexure C-2) lodged at P.S.Vikaspuri, Delhi.  The main grouse of the complainant is that  despite making all the formalities with the OP insurance company, claim of the vehicle in question was not  settled by the Op insurance company whereas on the contrary, the OP has contended that  the complainant  did not bother to respond the queries of their letters dated  26.05.2013 & 18.06.2013 (Annexures R-3 & R-4 respectively), so his claim was rightly repudiated  vide letter dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure R-6). We have minutely examined the letters Annexures R-3 & R-4 whereby the OP insurance company raised queries from the complainant qua (i) At the time of insurance of the vehicle through M/s Samriti Hyundai, who initiated  the proposal and who signed on proposal form and also the time and date and the mode of premium from your end. (ii) Earlier the vehicle was insured  with Reliance Insurance Co. till 10.03.2012 then why the complainant needed to change his insurance company (iii) vehicle in question reported to be stolen between 13.03.2012 to 16.03.2012 from Delhi so to produce any proof of vehicle’s existence with insured for the period from 11.03.2012 to 13.03.2012 by way of any receipt of toll tax, petrol filling cash memo or any other proof (iv) whether the vehicle in question  at the time of  renewal was produced for verification to any representative of insurer. As per our view, since the vehicle is admittedly insured with the OP insurance company during the period in question, the raising of above queries is meaningless rather these are the ways to get rid of from the liability. Thus the queries raised by the OP vide letters Annexure R-3 & R-4 are not justified in the eyes of law and as such, the same are discarded. 

                   Counsel for OP in support of his case has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as Rahul Tanwar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., R.P. No.2951 of 2011 decided on 09.11.2012 wherein it has been observed that “as per terms & conditions of the policy, it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate opposite party regarding theft of vehicle immediately and as complainant failed to inform or place any written information on record, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint”  and  an other case law decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. C.A. No.1375/2003 decided on 08.10.2010 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant  has been dismissed and repudiation of the claim by insurer was justified.

5.                 The facts referred in the case laws Rahul Tanwar (supra)  are not conforming to the facts of the present case since in the above referred case, motor cycle was stolen on 13.01.2015 and FIR was lodged on 18.01.2015 i.e. after a delay of 5 days and complainant did not submit documents within time and claim was repudiated whereas in the present case complainant’s son informed the police immediately as soon as he noticed on 16.03.2012 morning that the vehicle in question is missing from the place where he parked on 13.03.2012 night as clearly mentioned in the FIR ( Annexure R-1 tendered by OP)  and the police authorities of P.S. Vikaspuri West Delhi lodged the FIR in this regard immediately specifically mentioning ‘No Delay’ under clause-‘Reasons for Delay in reporting by the complainant/informant’ and thereafter intimated the insurer in writing vide Annexure R-2. Further, as per condition No.1 of the policy (Annexure R-5 tendered by OP on the court file), there is clear mentioning at page 6 of 10 of the policy “In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate within the company in securing the conviction  of the offender” which the complainant has complied with in  its letter & spirit by informing to the police immediately and to the OP company thereafter in writing.  Further the observation given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) is qua agreement between the parties to the contract of insurance and assessment of loss by the surveyor of the insured is also  not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case.

                   In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the confirmed view that the Op has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP-Insurance Company is directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- to complainant (Insured Declared Value as per Annexure C-1) alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint to till date.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment &  mental agony.
3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of punitive damages.
4. And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for litigation charges including the counsel’s fee.

                                     

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced: 29.07.2016

                                                                                                    Sd/- 

                                                                                           (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

      (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER.