Punjab

Sangrur

CC/567/2015

Amandeep Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Yogesh Gupta

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    567

                                                Instituted on:      06.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.12.2015

 

Amandeep Goyal son of Shri Nand Kishore, resident of H.NO.101, New Grain Market, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate.

For OP                      :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Amandeep Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his Scorpio car bearing registration number PB-10-CT-0713,  2010 model from OP vide cover note number 333191 dated 12.1.2014 for the period from 12.1.2014 to 11.1.2015 for Rs.6,00,000/-.   The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen on the intervening night of 4/5.6.2014 from the street. The vehicle in question was properly locked at the time of theft.  It is further averred that the complainant came to know about the theft at 6.00 AM on 5.6.2014, as such, the complainant got registered FIR number 175 on 5.6.2014 in PS City Sangrur and intimation of the theft was also given to the OP immediately. It is further stated that the vehicle could not be found and the police also submitted the untraced report in the court, which was accepted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 6.12.2014. It is further stated that the Op after an inordinate delay sent letter dated 26.5.2015 and asked to complainant to supply translation copy of FIR and invoice of the vehicle and the same was duly replied. The grievance of the complainant is that despite all this, the OP has not settled the claim inspite of serving legal notice dated 10.6.2015. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the Op be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.6.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP at the time of its theft. It is also admitted that after receiving intimation dated 16.6.2014, the OP immediately appointed Shri N.K. Bhalla, Investigator for investigation of the claim regarding theft, who submitted his report dated 27.8.2014. It is further stated that after receipt of the investigation report, the OP sent a letter dated 21.4.2015 to the complainant for submission of translation of police document from Punjabi to English and invoice of the above said vehicle, but the complainant did not accept the same intentionally and the same was received back undelivered. The complainant did not submit the same documents despite sending of letter dated 26.5.2015, as such the claim of the complainant could not be processed and it is stated that the complaint is premature one and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of cover note, Ex.C-3 copy of FIR, Ex.C-4 copy of order dated 6.12.2014, Ex.C-5 copy of application, Ex.C-6 copy of letter dated 26.5.2015, Ex.C-7 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-8 copy of reply, Ex.C-9 copy of true translation of FIR and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP1 copy of policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of intimation letter dated 16.6.2014, Ex.OP-3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 21.4.2015, Ex.OP-5 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the  parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured the car in question from the OP under policy number 1117843113P147306043 for the period from 12.1.2014 to 11.1.2015 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.21715/- vide policy, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-1. It is further evident from the copy of insurance policy that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.6,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant in the complaint.

 

6.             It is further on record that the vehicle in question was stolen on 4/5.6.2014 the information of which was given by the complainant to the police as well as to the OP immediately. The police also got registered FIR number 175 on 5.6.2014 in PS City about the theft of the vehicle in question, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3 and the copy of true translation is Ex.C-9.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of untraced report of the vehicle in question duly accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.12.2014.  Ex.C-7 is the copy of legal notice duly served by the complainant upon the OP about the non settlement of the claim.  But, there is no explanation from the side of the OP that what was the reason for non settlement of the claim of the complainant even after receiving the untraced report by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was accepted on 12.12.2014 and thereafter the OP wrote a letter to the complainant on 21.4.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP/4 after a period of about five months for submission of translation of police FIR from Punjabi to English and invoice of the vehicle, as the same were not required at all.  The letter in question has been sent by the OP to the complainant calling for translation of police FIR and invoice of the vehicle, only to fill the lacuna of delay on its part.  The OP has not produced any rule or regulation requiring the complainant to submit the copy of translation of FIR from Punjabi to English, more so when, the office of the OP is situated at Sangrur in Punjab.  It seems that the OP has intentionally and wilfully did not settle the claim of the complainant, more so when the surveyor in its report dated 27.8.2014, Ex.OP-3, it has been clearly mentioned that the claim is genuine as per terms and conditions of the issued policy.   We have also perused the affidavit, Ex.OP/5 of Shri Satish Kumar Garg, authorised signatory of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it has been stated that after receiving the investigation report, the OP sent a letter dated 21.4.2015 to the complainant for submission of translation of police document from Punjabi to English and invoice of the above said vehicle i.e. the Op wrote a letter to the complainant after a period of about five months for submission of the documents as mentioned above, but there is no explanation that why they took a period of five months for sending such a letter and we feel that the OPs chose to sit over the file for such a long period and has harassed the complainant too much without any of its fault and further we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  We may mention that even during the present proceedings after receiving the translation copy of FIR, the OP did not take any action to settle the claim of the complainant and even did not make any offer for settlement of the claim.  Reliance can also be placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India announced in case United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus M.K.J. Corporation 1998(2) CLT 489, wherein it has been held that a reasonable time of two months would be justified for insurance company to take decision from the date of submission of report of surveyor whether the claim requires to be settled or rejected.  But, in the present case the OP took more than sufficient time for not deciding the claim of the complainant, which itself is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question is insured for Rs.6,00,000/- with the OP, as such, the OP is liable to pay the insurance claim to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- as per the insurance policy .

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the insurance companies are not acting fairly at the time of payment of the insurance claim in case of any loss.  He has also cited a judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon versus Ravi Dutt Sharma and another 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 631, wherein it has been held that the insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium and intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other.  The same view is also applicable in the present case as admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen on 5.06.2014, but the OP has withheld the rightful claim of the complainant without any reason.

 

9.             Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accepting the untraced report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate i.e. 12.12.2014 till realisation.  OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further to pay Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member