Haryana

Kurukshetra

31/2018

Pal SIngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.31 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 13.02.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:03.10.2018.

Pal Singh S/o Sh. Jagir Singh, R/o H.No.88/1785, Bhagwan Nagar Colony, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kurukshetra, SCO No.97, Ist Floor, Sector-17, through its Branch Manager. 

….Respondent.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Shekhar Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Pal Singh against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of motor-cycle Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing registration No.HR07Q/4880 and he got insured the said motor-cycle with the Op vide insurance policy No.1107023116P106799493 for the period valid w.e.f. 25.08.2016 to 24.08.2017.  It is alleged that on 26.05.2017, the said motor-cycle was with the son of complainant namely Hardeep Singh and the said-motor cycle was standing in front of complainant’s son house i.e. G27, Ist Floor, Dwarkapur Naveen Shahadra Delhi.  The said motor-cycle was stolen from the house of son of complainant.  It is further alleged that an FIR dt. 27.05.2017 was got registered at Crime Branch Delhi, P.S.Shahdra North East.  Information regarding theft of said motor-cycle was given to the Op.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim vide letter dt. 08.01.2018.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to pay the insured amount of Rs.22,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and further to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that after receiving intimation regarding theft of motor-cycle, Sh. R.D.Bansal, Investigator was deputed for investigation, who had conducted a thorough enquiry and after enquiry, it was revealed that Hardeep Singh (son of complainant) had left the original key in the vehicle, which is gross negligence on the part of insured’s son and as such, the claim was not maintainable.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of his case, learned Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits, Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, copy of RC as Ex.C1, copy of policy as Ex.C2, copy of acknowledgement as Ex.C3, copy of FIR as Ex.C4, copy of order dt. 25.10.2017 as Ex.C5, copy of letter dt. 08.01.2018 as Ex.C6 and copy of aadhar card as Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A, policy alongwith terms and conditions as Ex.R1, copy of letter dt. 08.01.2018 as Ex.R2, copy of claim form as Ex.R3, copy of surveyor report dt. 22.06.2017 as Ex.R4, copy of statement as Ex.R5, copy of key as Ex.R6 and copy of statement as Ex.R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that his motor-cycle was stolen from the house of his son and regarding that he has lodged FIR No.016089 dt. 27.05.2017 at Crime Branch Delhi Police Station Shahdra North East, copy of which Ex.C4 is placed on the file.  The OP has repudiated the claim of complainant without any sufficient cause.  It is also contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the Op has prepared the documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 and these are the forged documents because the investigator of the Op has taken signed of the complainant and his son on some blank papers.  They have not prepared the said documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 in which it was contended that the son of complainant has left the key in his motor-cycle, so, the Op has done cheating with the complainant.  It is also contended by the counsel of complainant that there is no affidavit of surveyor on the file.  Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted copies of orders titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal bearing Appeal (Civil) No.3409 of 2008 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.05.2008; Amalendu Sahoo Vs. OIC bearing Civil Appeal No.2703 of 2010 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 25.03.2010 and Mahabir Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 16.01.2018 and it was opined in para No.21 of the said order as under:-

                “21. This condition in our considered view requires insured to take reasonable steps for protection of the insured vehicle from any loss or damage.  The leaving of the key in the ignition of the car on all occasions cannot be termed as so serious breach so as to disentitle the insured from seeking claim under the insurance policy.  Whether or not there is breach of condition will always depend upon the facts of the case”.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op contended that it is the duty of the owner of vehicle to lock the vehicle.  It is his fault and due to that, his vehicle was stolen.  It is also contended by counsel for the Op that it is an admitted fact that in the documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R7, the son of complainant had left his key in his motor-cycle.  So, it is his negligence and hence, they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant.  The signatures of complainant and his son are admitted by the counsel of complainant, so, the present complaint may please be dismissed.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  We are fortified with the contentions of counsel for the complainant.  There is no momentum of force in the submissions of counsel for the Op.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and hence, they have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay Rs.22,000/- as insured amount to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  In case the vehicle is recovered in future and is handed over to the complainant, he shall be bound to transfer the RC of the vehicle in favour of the Op and further shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the Op immediately thereafter.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:03.10.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.