Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/32/2021

SANDDEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Sharma

17 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                     Complaint Case No. :  32 of 2021

                                                                     Date of Institution    :  04.02.2021

                                                                     Date of decision       :  17.09.2024

 

Sandeep son of Sh. Inder Singh R/o H.No.34, Ward No.1, Village Kalod, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                  ...Complainant 

                                                                                                   

                                                    Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Branch office at Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

...Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

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

                    Ms.  Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Lalit Kaushik, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of vehicle  TATA Signa 4923- Goods Carrier Trailor bearing registration No.HR-61D-4020 (in short the vehicle) got it insured from OP insurance company for a period from 04.01.2020 to 03.01.2021 for an IDV of Rs.30,00,000/-. It is submitted that the vehicle was theft on 04.09.2020 at Mundka Industrial Area, West Delhi. On the day of occurrence, Mr. Narender Kumar son of Om Singh was driver on the vehicle. FIR No.021692 dated 04.09.2020 was registered at P.S. Mundka Outer District, Crime Branch, Delhi. The vehicle being untraceable and the police submitted untraced report before the court concerned which was accepted vide order dated 23.10.2020. Claim was lodged with the OP submitting all necessary/requisite  documents for this purpose. But the OP did not release the claim on one pretext or the other. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into monetary loss to him besides mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.30,00,000/- as IDV to the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of FIR till actual realization besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay Rs.50000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.  

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability of complaint, complaint bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts.  On merits, it is submitted that no such incident took place; there was no any valid route permit of the Delhi, Fitness certificate and effective driving license to drive the specific class of vehicle on the alleged date of theft. It is submitted that required documents including untraced report to process the claim were never supplied to the OP company despite issuance of letters dated 20.11.2020, 05.04.2021, 12.03.2021, 23.03.2021 and 30.03.2021. It is contended that legible copy of FIR was also not supplied. It is submitted that the alleged vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and was parked in the non-parking area. No due diligence was adopted while parking the vehicle at abandoned place and no GPS was installed in the vehicle. So, the complainant and alleged driver were responsible for the theft, if committed any. As such,  submitted that the claim of complainant is premature one and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with  costs.

3.                 Complainant in evidence, tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on 22.09.2022.

4.                 On the other side, Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Priyanka, Assistant Manager as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 and closed the evidence on 12.04.2024. In additional evidence documents Annexure C-1/A to Annexure C-1/E were also tendered in evidence on 22.08.2024.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record minutely.

6.                 The pleadings of OP insurance company is that complainant has not lodged any claim with it nor sent any information qua theft of the vehicle, therefore, the OP was unable to process the claim of complainant and thus the claim of complainant is pre-mature and is thus liable to be dismissed with costs. In support of his case, learned counsel for OP has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in complaint case no.CC/2017/41 titled Smt. Shilpla Kaushik Vs. LIC decided on 23.12.2017 wherein it is held that “complainant herself appears to be responsible for delay in settling her claim by the insurer-OPs. Further, the claim of complainant neither yet settled nor repudiated by the OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant held to be premature- Resultantly, the Ops directed to decide the claim of complainant within two months from the date of the order.

7.                 On the other side, to rebut the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for complainant has argued that all the requisite documents were supplied to the OPs for processing the claim of the stolen vehicle pertaining to complainant and has placed on record documents Annexure C-1/A & C-1/B regarding intimation to the OP and its another office at Naraina, qua theft of the vehicle and for release of the claim and also placed postal receipts thereof Annexure C-1/C  & Annexure C-1/D wherefrom it is evident that the theft information was sent by complainant to the OP insurance company on 04.12.2020. As such, the version of OP insurance company that the complainant has not intimated it about theft of the vehicle and also not lodged any claim with it is not tenable.

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that on the day of theft, the vehicle was under the cover of insurance policy and this fact is not disputed from OP side. From FIR (Annexure C-3) and untraced report of the vehicle (Annexure C-4) reveal that the vehicle was theft on the alleged date and during the investigation of police, it was not traced out. As per copy of driving license (Annexure C-2), it is evident that driver of the vehicle, Mr. Narender Kumar was authorized to drive such category of vehicle in question. In view of the above, the OP insurance company is deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant which must have caused him huge monetary loss which as per IDV was Rs.30,00,000/- mentioned in insurance policy Ex.R-10, besides mental and physical harassment for which OP insurance company is liable to pay the complainant. In an answer to the query of the Commission, learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the vehicle was under loan agreement with DCB Bank Ltd. but he could not tell whether any loan amount is outstanding towards complainant or not. In such a circumstances, since, the vehicle was under HPA, therefore, the aforesaid financier bank has first right to recover the financed amount, if due any, from the awarded amount. Thereafter, the OP insurance company be disbursed remaining amount to the complainant. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty lac) as IDV of the vehicle in question, to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization in view the directions contained in foregoing para of this judgment, subject to execution of letter of Subrogation, 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 receipt of certified copy of this order.

 (ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) as compensation for harassment.

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

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 9% 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 within rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:17.09.2024