Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/5/2019

Akshay - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

R.S Sarova

15 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 05 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    : 07.01.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 15.01.2024

 

Akshay son of Sh. Babu Lal R/o Dinod Road, Shashtri Nagar, Balaji Colony, Near Oil Mill, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

2. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office: Door No.-SCO-123-124, Floor No.3, Sector-17B, Chandigarh-160001.

 

3. Micro Incharge, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at Railway Station Road, Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani-127020.       

 

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Ravinder Singh Saroha, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for OPs.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that complainant is registered owner of car Chevrolet Cruyze bearing regn. No.HR-24N-8888 and it was comprehensively insured with the OP company vide policy No.1112823116P115198376 dated 10.02.2017 which was valid from 10.02.2017 to 09.02.2018.  On 08.02.2018 complainant was at Gurugram and he parked the vehicle at Sector-46, Gurugram in the night. On 09.02.2018, he did not found the car at parking place. So, FIR NO.0069 dated 09.02.2018 got lodged under Section 379 IPC at P.S. Sector-50 Gurugram regarding theft of the vehicle. Thereafter, OP was informed, complainant was asked to submit all relevant documents which were submitted with OP No.3. However, vide letter dated 29.07.2018, complainant was asked to submit  copy of FIR, FR, Untrace report, Key of vehicle and Form No.29 & 30 as well as IDV clarification of the vehicle. The documents were submitted with the OP on 25.09.2018. Again vide letter dated 24.10.2018, OP asked to submit copy of R.C. and NCRB report of the vehicle, these documents were submitted on 09.11.2018. But the claim was not settled by the OPs. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment, as such, sought directions against the OPs to pay Rs.8,09,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of stolen till actual realization, further to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi and suppression of material facts by complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle was insured for the alleged period and was reported to be stolen on 09.02.2018,when  it was parked in open plot at right hand of the JM Residency Lodge, Sector-46 Gurugram. Upon intimation, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Grover, Claim Investigator was deputed for investigation of the vehicle who submitted report whereby it was found that complainant was required to submit certain documents for clarification but he failed to comply with the letters, reminders and final reminder, lastly on 01.03.2019. As such, vide letter dated 12.04.2019, claim of complainant was closed as No Claim under intimation to the complainant. Thus complainant has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy and also failed to safeguard the vehicle from occurring loss which amounts to gross negligence on the part of complainant.  In the end, deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with compensatory costs.

3.                 Complainant in his evidence produced his affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, document Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7 produced on behalf of OPs and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                 At the outset, perusal of photocopy of registration certificate (Annexure C-1) reveals that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle in question.  Annexure- R-1 is the insurance policy qua the vehicle in question for the relevant period of time and IDV of the vehicle is Rs.8,09,500/-. As per copy of FIR Annexure C-2, the vehicle in question was stolen in the night on 08.02.2018 and FIR No.0069 dated 09.02.2018 under Section 379 IPC was registered at PS Sector-50 Gurugram in this regard.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of order dated 16.07.2018 whereby untrace report submitted by the police has been accepted by the learned court of JMIC, Gurugram. Annexure C-4 is a letter vide which several documents have been required by the Op insurance company from complainant. In response thereto, complainant submitted his reply (Annexure C-5) whereby he allegedly submitted the following:

1.       R.C of the vehicle.

2.       Latest NCRB report.

3.       Original Key of the vehicle.

4.       Report of Investigator was denied and IDV admitted as correct.

 

5.       Non-release of claim by Ops has been agitated.

                    This Annexure C-5 has been received by the OP No.3 under signature and seal of the office. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that despite submitting all relevant documents with the Ops, they have not released genuine claim of complainant which amount to gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on their part for which they be penalized and IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest, as prayed for, may be awarded to the complainant. 

7.                 On the other side, learned counsel for Ops has argued that despite repeated letters by OPs, complainant has not submitted relevant documents with the OP insurance company which caused hindrance in considering claim of complainant. The counsel has argued that  as per report of investigator, IDV of the car found on very higher side declared by complainant. Thus complainant himself is liable for denial claim to him.  As such,  it was closed as No Claim. The counsel has vehemently argued that the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.

8.                 It is very strange that the Op insurance company has not placed on record, copy of investigation report, on the basis of which they are disputing IDV of the vehicle, however, it is very much clear in the insurance policy as Rs.8,09,500/- issued by the OPs. As such, the denial of claim on this ground is not legal and thus goes against the OPs. Perusal of documents reveals that the claim to the complainant had been denied by OPs for non-submission of requisite documents but as per Annexure C-5, necessary document(s) necessary to consider a claim has already been submitted by the complainant to the OPs. From the above, it reveals that the OPs have denied claim to the complainant in an arbitrary and negligent manner which has no space in the eyes of law. Further, the Ops had option to seek the document(s) required, if any, during pendency of the case but they did not opt for the same which also does not show their bonadife intention in considering the claim of complainant.

9.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the considered view that complainant is legally entitled for claim of stolen vehicle from OP insurance company since it is not disputed that on the day of occurrence/theft i.e. 08.02.2018 in the night, the vehicle in question was under insurance cover. The OPs denied genuine claim to the complainant for which he has to knock door of this Commission and has to incur money as well as his precious time, thus complainant must have harassed at the hands of OPs.  Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within fourty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.8,09,500/- (Rs. Eight lac nine thousand five hundred) as IDV, to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization subject to execution of letter of Subrogation in favour of OP Company and furnishing of affidavit & all other relevant documents qua transfer of vehicle in question in favour of OP Insurance Company by the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of Ops.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:15.01.2024.

 

                              (Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)       

                                                   Member                 Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.