Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/195/2020

Amrik Singh S/o Bakshish Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Deswal

13 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.195 of 2020

                                                     Date of institution: 29.06.2020

                                                     Date of decision:13.01.2022

                         

Amrik Singh son of Sh.Bakshish Ram, resident of 285/7, Guru Nanak Colony, Pehowa,  Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.United  India Insurance Company Limited SCO-97,  1^st Floor,  Sector 17, Kurukshetra through its Manager.

2.United India Insurance Company Limited, 24, Whites Roiad, Chennai-600014 through its Managing Director.              ….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.Ashish Deswal Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.R.K.Singhal Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Amrik Singh  against  United India Insurance Company Limited  etc. the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant Amrik Singh is owner of a  Splendor Plus Motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-41D-9584 Marka  HERO MOTOCROP and the said motor cycle of the complainant was insured with the OP  vide insurance policy No.22140031170160026578 for the period from 23.8.2017 to 22.08.2018 and payment of premium of Rs.1,049/- was duly paid by the complainant to the OP. It is further stated that unfortunately the  on 23.6.2018 the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person from the parking of court complex, Pehowa (Tehsil Complex) when the complainant visited the office for some work. The complainant had duly locked the vehicle.  The complainant tried his  best to search the vehicle but in vain.  The complainant handed over a written complaint dated 23.6.2018 to the police regarding the theft of the vehicle in question but the police instead of registering the FIR directed the complainant to trace the vehicle at his own.  The complainant after one week visited the police station and informed the police that the vehicle was not found. The complainant requested the police to register a FIR and demanded a copy of the FIR as a written complaint had already been given to the police on 23.6.2018 but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant obtained the copy of FIR on 6.7.2018 from the police and as such the delay in registration of FIR is on the part of the police. The complainant immediately on the next day of the occurrence had given intimation of theft of the vehicle to the  OP.  The OP informed the   complainant to give a copy of FIR and other documents.  The complainant   handed over the copy of FIR and other documents to the Ops to the agent of the Ops and also sent the said documents through courier to the Ops and requested them to make the payment of the claim.  The Ops sent their representative Sh.N.K.Arora who made the enquiry and demanded the documents from the complainant. The complainant also  submitted the documents alongwith keys of the said motor cycle. Two other officials also visited the complainant and obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank papers. Other documents alongwith non traceable report were also submitted to Sh.N.K.Arora by the complainant. The complainant on 8.5.2019 made a complaint to the  Insurance Ombudsman  Chandigarh but his claim was rejected.  The complainant received order of  Insurance Ombudsman  in March 2020 and after going through the said order, the complainant came to know that his claim has already been repudiated on 19.5.2019. Thus, the act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services on their part. Therefore, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

3.             Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  However, insurance of the vehicle and lodging of FIR regarding the theft  of the vehicle has been admitted by the Ops. It is submitted that the motor cycle in question was alleged to be stolen on 23.6.2018 whereas the intimation to the police was given on 6.07.2018 i.e. after 13 days and the intimation to the company was given on 5.01.2019 after more than six months and it is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It is submitted that it is settled law that intimation regarding the theft of vehicle should be given immediately to the police as well as to the insurance company so that they can verify regarding the theft and can take action.  It is submitted that the complainant had already filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsmen Chandigarh regarding the same matter and the said complaint was dismissed by the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh. Thus, it is submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the claim of the complainant has  been rightly rejected and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CCW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-13 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, Ops in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that owner of a  Splendor Plus Motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-41D-9584 Marka  HERO MOTOCROP and the said motor cycle of the complainant was insured with the OP  vide insurance policy No.22140031170160026578 for the period from 23.8.2017 to 22.08.2018 and payment of premium of Rs.1,049/- was duly paid by the complainant to the OP. It is further argued that unfortunately   on 23.6.2018 the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person from the parking of court complex, Pehowa (Tehsil Complex) when the complainant visited the office for some work. The complainant had duly locked the said vehicle.  The complainant went to the police and gave application Ex.C-3 to the police but the police said to trace the vehicle at his own instead of registering the FIR.  The complainant also gave intimation of theft to the Ops on toll free number. The  complainant had also given message of theft to the agent of the Ops through whom the policy was obtained.  It is further argued that the complainant tried his best to search the vehicle but in vain.  The complainant after one week visited the police station and informed the police that the vehicle was not found. It is also argued that the complainant requested the police to register a FIR and demanded a copy of the FIR  as a written complaint had already been given to the police on 23.6.2018 but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant obtained the copy of FIR on 6.7.2018 from the police and as such the delay in registration of FIR is on the part of the police. The complainant immediately on the next day of the occurrence had given intimation of theft of the vehicle to the OP.  The OP informed the   complainant to give a copy of FIR and other documents.  The complainant   handed over the copy of FIR and other documents to the Ops to the agent of the Ops and also sent the said documents through courier to the Ops and requested them to make the payment of the claim. The complainant also issued. The complainant also sent reminders Ex.Ex.C-11, Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13 for settlement of the claim.  The Ops sent their representative Sh.N.K.Arora who made the enquiry and demanded the documents from the complainant. The complainant also submitted the documents alongwith keys of the said motor cycle. Two other officials also visited the complainant and obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank papers. Other documents alongwith non traceable report were also submitted to Sh.N.K.Arora by the complainant. The complainant on 8.5.2019 made a complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh but his claim was rejected.  The complainant received order of Insurance Ombudsman in March 2020 and after going through the said order, the complainant came to know that his claim has already been repudiated on 19.5.2019. Thus, it is argued that such an   act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services on their part.  Reliance has been placed on  IDBI Bank Vs. Pardeep Tayal and another Appeal No.2277 of 2008 decided on 13.7.2010 (State Commission UT Chandigarh), Dharamender Vs. United India Insurance Co.(SC) Law Finder Dioc Id # 1882542,  Asgar Khan Vs.Chairman  Permanent Lok Adalat Punjab and Haryana  High Court Law  2020 (3)  ALL MR 16 and  Shriram General Insurance  Vs. Ramcharan Dhobi  2017(1) CPR 430.

 

8.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the complaint has argued that the motor cycle in question was alleged to be stolen on 23.6.2018 whereas the intimation to the police was given on 6.07.2018 i.e. after 13 days and the intimation to the company was given only on 5.01.2019 after more than six months and it is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and when the documents were received through courier.  It is further argued that the complainant had already filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsmen Chandigarh regarding the same matter and the said complaint was dismissed by the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh therefore,  the present complaint cannot be filed before this Commission and is not maintainable before this Commission. It is argued that the complainant has given the intimation to the Ops only on 5.1.2019 through courier and the application Ex.C-3 allegedly given to the police is fabricated document because it does not contain any stamp of the concerned police station. It is also argued that the complainant has alleged that he had given documents and intimation to the agent but the identity card of such person has not been placed on the file by the complainant to prove that said person is agent of the Ops. Thus, it is argued that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the claim of the complainant has been rightly rejected and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                In the rebuttal arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that  code No. of agent Karambir is BRC0000907 and the said code number is also written on the policy  Ex.C-1.

9.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Ops. From the affidavit Ex.CW2/A it is established that Karambir Singh son of Inder Singh r/o Jakhwala is agent of the IRDA-Ops and his code number is mentioned on the policy Ex.C-1. Therefore, argument of the Ops that identity of the person-agent is not established is devoid of any force. Further, from Ex.C-3 it is proved that the complainant intimated the police in written through this application, therefore, it cannot be said that there was delay in intimation to the police as well as Ops because police kept the matter pending and had not registered the FIR in time as the complainant on receipt of copy of FIR on supplied the copy of FIR and other documents to Karambir agent. As per Ex.CW2/A the theft took place on 23.6.2018 and on 24.6.2018 he intimated the agent Karambir regarding theft of vehicle but the agent asked him to supply the copy of FIR. Therefore, Karambir agent intimated the Ops only on 6.7.2018 on receipt of copy of FIR.

10.            In our view genuine claim   should not be rejected on the ground of delay in intimation. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Limited’s case (Supra) Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:

                “ As per  IRDA circular dated 20.9.2011, no genuine claim should be rejected on the technical  ground of delay-Prima facie  the claims of those who do not comply with the terms and conditions of the policy may be rejected as violation of terms and conditions of the  policy, however, directions of IRDA vide circular No. IRDA/HLTH/MIS/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.09.2011, provide for non rejection  of genuine cases even though there is some violation in complying with the terms and conditions of the policy in certain cases, like delay in informing  the insurance company.- Insurance claim of the complainant for theft of his vehicle may be allowed but not to the tune of 100% because there has been deficiency on the part of the complainant in informing the insurance comp0any in writing and in time as per terms and conditions of the policy. Interest of justice would be served, if the insurance claim is allowed for 60% of the insured value of the vehicle.”

                In  Asgar Khan’s case (Supra) Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court it is held as under:

 

                “If FIR was not registered promptly and there was inaction on the part of the police officials- Appellant cannot be faulted and penalized for this-Respondent insurance company was also intimated  and a claim Form was submitted to it on the same day.-Not the case of respondent-insurance company that there was no theft. Further as per circular of IRDA, insurance claim is not to be repudiated on technical grounds of delay in intimating the Insurance Company-Order rejecting claim-Set aside.”

 

                In the case in hand, the complainant has clearly stated that he gave  application Ex.C-3 to the police for registration of the FIR but the police kept the matter pending, therefore, the complainant cannot be faulted for delay in FIR.

                Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharamender,s case (Supra).

 

11.            The argument of the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant had already filed complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman and the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable is also devoid of any force. Because Consumer Fora is an additional remedy-Banking  Ombudsman is not a statutory authority-Consumer after claiming relief before the Banking Ombudsman can approach For a, is still aggrieved. Therefore, complaint before this Commission is well maintainable.

Hon’ble State Commission, UT Chandigarh in  IDBI Bank’s case (Supra) has held as under:

                “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 3 Jurisdiction- Consumer For a is an additional remedy –Banking Ombudsman is not a statutory authority- Consumer after claiming relief before Banking Ombudsman can approach Consumer Fora, if still aggrieved.”

 

12.            As per insurance policy Ex.C-1, the motor cycle of the complainant was insured for the sum of Rs.21216/-, therefore, being genuine claim, the complainant is entitled to the sum assured i.e. 21216/- Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is established.

 

13.            In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to pay the claim of Rs.21216/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The Ops are also directed to pay the sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and Rs.5000/- for the litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to  make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. A certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission

Dated 13.01.2022.                                               President.

 

                        Member             Member.