Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/344/2019

Virender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Bhora

13 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.344 of 2019

                                                     Date of institution: 20.08.2019

                                                     Date of decision: 13.12.2021

 

Virender Kumar aged about 32 years, son of Sh.Ram Chander resident of village and P.O.Nand Karan Majra, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1.United India Insurance Company Limited, Geeta Colony, Sector -17, Kurukshetra  through its Branch Manager.

2.United India Insurance Company Limited near Dev Petrol Pump, Rohtak Road, Meham, District Rohtak Pin  111283 through its Branch Manager.

3.United India Insurance Company Limited 24, Whites Road, Chennai, Pin 600014 through its Managing Director.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Issam Singh  Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Vinod Bura Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Gaurav Gupta Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER

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

2.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-83-7051 Model No.2015 and the said car was insured with the OP vide insurance policy No.1112833117P119257361 w.e.f. 31.3.2018 to 30.3.2019. The insured value of the said car is Rs.4, 20,000/- as per the said policy. It is further submitted that on 9.08.2018 the said car of the complainant was stolen and FIR No.799 dated 9.08.2018 u/s 379 IPC was lodged with the Police Station, Thanesar district Kurukshetra. The information regarding theft of the  vehicle was also given to the police as well as OP on the same day.  The complainant submitted all the required documents required for the settlement of the claim. The complainant also submitted the documents as demanded by the Ops vide letter dated 28.2.2019 bearing No.MD/2019/dispatch/74 and in compliance of the said letter, all the required documents were submitted by the complainant but till date the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the Ops which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed  the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the claim amount alongwith interest and compensation.

 

3.             The Ops appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that complainant himself is at fault as the vehicle was stolen on 9.8.2018 and the insurance company was intimated on 4.10.2018 after a delay of about two months from the date of alleged theft. Hence, the delay in intimation to the company has prejudiced possibility of recovery of the vehicle. This constitutes serious breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which states that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any loss and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall required.  Thus, it is submitted  that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated 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 affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 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-5 and closed their evidence.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-83-7051 Model No.2015 and the said car was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy No.1112833117P119257361 w.e.f. 31.3.2018 to 30.3.2019. The insured value of the said car is Rs.4,20,000/-  as  per the said policy. It is further argued that on 9.08.2018 the said car of the complainant was stolen and FIR No.799 dated 9.08.2018 u/s 379 IPC was lodged with the Police Station, Thanesar district Kurukshetra. The information regarding theft of the vehicle was also given to the police as well as OP on the same day.  The complainant submitted all the required documents required for the settlement of the claim.  It is further argued that the complainant also submitted the documents as demanded by the Ops vide letter dated 28.2.2019 bearing No.MD/2019/dispatch/74 and in compliance of the said letter, all the required  documents were submitted by the complainant  but till date the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the Ops which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has argued that that complainant himself is at fault as the vehicle was stolen on 9.8.2018 and the insurance company was intimated on 4.10.2018 after a delay of about two months from the date of alleged theft. Hence, the delay in intimation to the company has prejudiced possibility of recovery of the vehicle. This constitutes serious breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which states that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any loss and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall required.  Thus, it is argued that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

8.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the insurance of the vehicle in question is not at all in dispute as admitted by the both the parties and established from the Insurance policy Ex.C-10.  Theft of the vehicle is also not in dispute as is established from the copy of FIR Ex.C-9 bearing No.799 dated 9.08.2018 u/s 379 IPC. The complainant lodged the claim of the vehicle with the Ops but the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 18.06.2019 Ex.R-2. The Ops have contended that the complainant gave intimation of theft of the Ops only on 4.10.2018 whereas it was stolen on 9.8.2018 and they have been prejudiced from recovering the said vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has got FIR lodged on the same i.e. 9.8.2018 when the vehicle was stolen.  The Ops have stated that intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given too much but the Ops have failed to place on any evidence that the intimation was given on what date and in the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be assumed that the intimation of theft was given late by the complainant to the Ops. The job of recovery of the said vehicle is of the policy and not that of the insurance company. In our view when the claim is genuine because it is not the case of the OP that the vehicle was not stolen, then the claim of the complainant should not be denied on technical grounds   and as such the complainant is entitled to the sum insured i.e. Rs. 4,20,000/- alongwith compensation etc.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment  of sum assured i.e. Rs.4,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and  Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.                         President.

Dated: 13.12.2021.

 

                                Member             Member,