Haryana

Kurukshetra

114/2018

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar

01 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.114 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 18.05.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:01.01.2019.

Harpal Singh S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh, R/o Village Amin (Dera Rampura), Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O.No.97, First Floor, Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

….Respondent.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Smt. Purnima Malhota, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

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

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured his car India bearing registration No.HR29A-9618 with the Op vide policy No.1126003117P105327527 valid w.e.f. 10.07.2017 to 09.07.2018.  It is alleged that on 12.11.2017, the said car was stolen in the area of Salarpur Road, Subzi Mandi, Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetrsa.  The complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 100 number and reported the matter regarding theft of above-said car and the police officials further reported about the theft to all the concerned police posts, police stations, PCR, Riders etc. and did all the necessary action but the police could not find or trace any clue of the stolen car.  Thereafter, the police lodged an FIR bearing No.1019 dt. 20.11.2017 under Section 379 IPC in P.S.City Thanesar.  Information regarding theft of vehicle was also given to the Op.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant on 03.04.2018.  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 a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- 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; estoppel; jurisdiction; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is stated that no detail regarding the complaint on 100 number of police is being provided by the complainant intentionally to the Op even inspite of repeated requests.  Moreover, no time and date of alleged call on 100 number is mentioned in the present complaint.  The alleged FIR is lodged after delay of 8 days by the complainant in connivance with the police.  No intimation regarding the theft was given immediately to the Op.  The complainant himself admitted that he had applied to the Op for the claim on 25.01.2018 i.e. after delay of two and half months.  The claim of complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dt. 03.04.2018.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/I and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 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 he got insured the car in question with the Op for the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.  On 12.11.2017, the complainant had visited Sabji Mandi, Thanesar, Kurukshetra for purchasing the vegetables and he had parked his car with lock.  After purchasing of vegetables when he returned back, he was shocked to see that his car was not there.  After that he lodged complaint with the police on 100 number from his mobile.  He further argued that he has taken that document regarding the complaint on 100 number to the police i.e. Ex.CW1/D.  He further argued that in this document, it is clearly mentioned by the police officials that as per record on 12.11.2017 at about 06.30 a.m., one mobile phone No.99962227260 received and told that one Car Indica Colour Silver No.HR29AA 9618 stolen from Starpur Mandi and same convey to all PCR, Rider, Police Station etc.  After investigation, the police has lodged FIR on 20.11.2017 i.e. Ex.CW1/E.  At the time of arguments, complainant’s counsel placed on record untraced report of vehicle in question i.e. Mark-CA and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op contended that the claim of complainant was repudiated due to two reasons mentioned in the repudiation letter i.e. Ex.CW1/F i.e. “As per policy condition No.1 the “Insured has to give in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any loss”.  The delay in intimating the theft can be fatal, so, the negligence in giving timely intimation of theft claim has a very material impact on the claim liability.

        Secondly, there is inordinate delay in lodging FIR also.  The incident of theft took place on 12.11.2017, whereas FIR had been lodged in PS on 20.11.2017 i.e. after eight days”.

He further contended that the theft of vehicle took place on 12.11.2017, whereas FIR was lodged on 20.11.2017 i.e. after a delay of 8 days.  So, the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company.  It is as per the terms and conditions of the policy because the complainant is duty bound to inform the insurance company about the theft of vehicle immediately after the accident and after the FIR lodged by the complainant.

9.             On perusal of file, it is clear that the theft of vehicle of complainant took place on 12.11.2017 and due intimation was given by the complainant to the police on 100 number.  The FIR was got lodged due to the investigation by the police officials.  Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Op.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as insured value of the vehicle to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that 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.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  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.:01.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.