Haryana

Kurukshetra

200/2018

Pardeep Kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Sudesh Kumar Kaushik

09 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.200 of 2018

                                                     Date of institution: 18.09.2018                                                                     Date of decision:09.03.2022.

 

                                                      

                         

Pardeep Kaushik son of Shri Rishi Pal, resident of house No.435, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra tehsill Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

United India Insurance company Limited, Divisional Office, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager/Divisional Manager.

                                                                      ….Opposite party.

               

….Opposite party.

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Sudesh Kumar Kaushik Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Saneev Goel Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Pardeep Kumar against United India Insurance Co.Limited.-Opposite Party.

 

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant  was registered owner of the car bearing registration no. HR-06S-3810 and the said vehicle Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Sudesh Kumar Kaushik Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Saneev Goel Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Pardeep Kumar against United India Insurance Co.Limited.-Opposite Party.

 

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant  was registered owner of the car bearing registration no. HR-06S-3810 and the said vehicle was got insured by the complainant from OP vide policy No.1107023114P109064226 valid from 24.1.2015 to 23.1.2016 and the complainant paid the due premium.  It is further submitted that the said vehicle of the complainant was got stolen on 5.12.2015 by some unknown person and the  FIR  No.957 dated 6.12.2015  U/s 379 IPC was got registered in this regard at Police Station City, Thanesar. On the same day, the complainant   submitted the copy of FIR, RC and insurance policy to the OP  in the presence of Shri Arvind Goel, Develo0pment Officer of OP.  The complainant continuously remained in touch with the OP but the officials of the OP told that the case has been sent  to Head Office of OP for approval and the OP demanded   copy of the bank account of the complainant which was given by the complainant. The police investigated the matter and ultimately  filed untraced report on 6.5.2016 in the court of Illaqa Magistrate. Copy of the untraced report was also given by the complainant to  Shri  H.C.Munjal, Manager of the OP on 12.10.2016 The complainant kept on waiting but on 5.12.2015 a letter has been received by the complainant stating therein that the vehicle has been stolen on 5.12.2015 and intimation of the theft was given on 30.1.2017 whereas the insured had to give intimation of theft immediately. The OP lost the case file of the complainant and the complainant again  sent the documents including untraced report but the complainant received the letter dated 10.3.2017  vide which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim of the complainant alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted  that the complainant has given the intimation of theft to the OP of his car on 30.1.2017 and on perusal of the documents supplied by the complainant, it was observed that the  theft of above noted vehicle had taken place on  5.12.2015 and the complainant intimated the OP after about one year and two months after the incident of theft, which is very inordinate delay. As per condition no.1  “ insured has to give in writing to the OP immediately upon occurrence of any loss.” The delay in intimating the theft can be fatal so the negligence in giving timely intimation of the theft claim has a very material impact on the claim liability. The complainant was also requested to please tell us reasons, which have forbidden him to give them intimation in time. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR and intimation to the insurance company has prejudiced possibilities of recovery of the vehicle. This constitutes breach of policy terms and conditions and as such the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

 

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

 

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

7.             The Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the  complaint has argued that complainant  was registered owner of the car bearing registration no. HR-06S-3810 and the said vehicle was got insured by the complainant from OP vide policy No.1107023114P109064226 valid from 24.1.2015 to 23.1.2016 and the complainant.  It is argued  that the said vehicle of the complainant was got stolen on 5.12.2015 by some unknown person and the  FIR  No.957 dated 6.12.2015  U/s 379 IPC was got registered in this regard at Police Station City, Thanesar. On the same day, the complainant   submitted the copy of FIR, RC and insurance policy to the OP in the presence of Shri Arvind Goel, Development Officer of OP.  The complainant continuously remained in touch with the OP but the officials of the OP told that the case has been sent  to Head Office of OP for approval and the OP demanded   copy of the bank account of the complainant which was given by the complainant. The police investigated the matter and ultimately filed untraced report on 6.5.2016 in the court of Illaqa Magistrate. Copy of the untraced report was also given by the complainant to  Shri  H.C.Munjal, Manager of the OP on 12.10.2016. The Ops again demanded copy of the file and on receipt of the copy of the file because as per the OP, the file was stolen, then the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on the plea that there is delay in intimation whereas the complainant had already  given the intimation of theft and copy of the untraced report was given as and when it was received by him from the court.

 

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that  the complainant has given the intimation of theft to the OP of his car on 30.1.2017 and on perusal of the documents supplied by the complainant, it was observed that the  theft of above noted vehicle had taken place on  5.12.2015 and the complainant intimated the OP after about one year and two months after the incident of theft, which is very inordinate delay. As per condition no.1  “ insured has to give in writing to the OP immediately upon occurrence of any loss.” The delay in intimating the theft can be fatal so the negligence in giving timely intimation of the theft claim has a very material impact on the claim liability.

 

9.             After hearing the learned  counsel for both the parties, we see that the said vehicle was insured with the OP and the policy was valid as on the date of theft i.e. 5.12.2015 The complainant submitted the papers well in time for settlement of the claim but the untraced report was prepared only on 10.10.2016 and the complainant submitted the untraced report to the  OP on 10.10.2016 to Sh.H.C.Munjal, Manager of the OP.  The officer of the OP has also acknowledged the receipt of untraced report Ex.C-1 by putting his signatures on the file. No affidavit has come forward from the side of the OP that the complainant had not submitted the untraced report and papers of the claim well in time. The officials  of the OP told that the file has been misplaced and the complainant submitted the  copy of other papers. Then Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant  vide letter dated 15.3.2017. Thus, it is clear that the vehicle was actually stolen and it was insured as on the date of theft. The police has submitted the untraced report Ex.C-1, then in our view the claim of the complainant should not be repudiated merely  on the ground of delay in intimation. The Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the  case Dharamender Vs.United India Insurance Co.Limited Civil Appeal No.5705 of 2021, decided on13.09.2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the Hon’ble   Supreme court of India  has referred the  cases Om Parkash Vs.Reliance General Insurance and another reported in (2017)  9  SCC 724 and in Gurshinder Singh Vs.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and another reported in  (2020) 11 SCC 612 has held “ When an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the 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 the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.” 

 

                In the report case also the theft took place on 6.12.2015 and the FIR was lodged on 6.12.2015. Therefore, being the genuine claim especially when untraced report Ex.C-1 is also on the file, the complainant is entitled to claim. Therefore, relying upon the authorities cited on behalf of the complainant, the  present  complaint is accepted because there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP in denying the genuine claim of the complainant.

 

10.            In view  of  our above findings we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay the sum assured i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order, till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The OP is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy this order, failing which the  complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 09.03.2022.     

                                                                               President.

 

                                Member             Member.