Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1607/2015

Sood Oxygen Gas - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vinay Jindal

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                          

                                                Complaint No.  1607

                                                Instituted on:    08.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       06.09.2016

 

Sood Oxygen Gas Works, Main Road, Ward No.5 Khanauri Mandi, District Sangrur through its Prop Satish Kumar son of Tek Chand.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Near Police Station City, Sunam, through its Branch Manager.

2.             United India Insurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For Opp.parties                :       Shri Tomesh Sharma, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Satish Kumar proprietor of M/s. Sood Oxygen Gas Works, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is running the shop for sale of oxygen gas cylinders on small scale just to earn his livelihood. Further case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Tata Pickup 407 vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-W-9180, which was got insured from the OP number 1 for the period from 12.5.2014 to 11.5.2015 vide cover note number 301436 for Rs.3,00,000/-, but no policy or terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to the complainant despite repeated requests to the OP and his agent. It is further averred that the vehicle in question of the complainant was stolen in the night of 24.5.2014 when the same was parked outside the street at the available space. It is further averred that on 25.5.2014 in the morning at 8.30 AM it was found that the vehicle was not there and broken pieces of glass of side window of the vehicle were there. The complainant tried to find out the vehicle, but the same was not found, as such, he immediately approached the OPs and his agent on mobile number 94171-23908 about the theft of the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station to give the information along with the respectable persons, such as, Municipal Councillor  etc and submitted all the required documents, who assured that they will lodge the FIR at their own.  It is further stated that after passing of three days on 28.5.2014, when the complainant went to the police station along with Satish Kumar, Santosh Bansal and Ankush Singla to get the copy of the FIR, it was told that the documents have been misplaced. The complainant again provided the documents to the police and the police only registered the FIR on 28.5.2014 instead of 25.5.2014.  The order of acceptance of untraced report was received by the complainant on 25.3.2015 which was passed by Shri Atul Kamboj, Sum Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak and the same was also submitted the OPs, but the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.9.2015 on the ground that there is delay in lodging of FIR and intimation of occurrence to the Ops.   The complainant has alleged that the repudiation of the claim is wrong, illegal and without any basis. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.3,00,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle i.e. 24.5.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed the material facts and that as per the policy conditions, the insured is bound to inform the insurer in writing immediately.    On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle was stolen on 24.5.2014, whereas the FIR was lodged with the police on 28.5.2014.  It is stated that the complainant intimated the Ops about the theft of the vehicle in question only on 10.6.2014 and stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 affidavits, Ex.C-6 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-7coy of letter, Ex.C-8 copy of FIR, Ex.C-9 copy of untraced report, Ex.C-10 copy of motor vehicle verification report, Ex.C-1 copy of RC, Ex.C-12 copy of goods carriage permit, Ex.C-13 copy of application dated 25.5.2014, Ex.C-14 copy of intimation letter dated 25.5.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also 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 between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OPs as is evident from the copy of cover note on record as Ex.C-6.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on the night of 24.5.2014, when it was parked by the complainant at the vacant space at Khanauri.  It is also on record that the complainant got lodged the FIR with the police, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-8 and the complainant has also produced on record the copy of untraced report accepted by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, which is on record as Ex.C-9.  But, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.9.2015 on the ground that there is delay in lodging of FIR and intimation of occurrence to the opposite parties.   Now, the only question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant intimated the police and the opposite parties after a delay and that whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim or not.

 

6.             The case of the complainant is that there is no delay on his part in intimating the police about the theft, as immediately after the theft of the vehicle, the complainant along with the respectable persons of Khnauri i.e. Satish Kumar son of Dhirgu Ram, Mrs. Santosh Bansal, M.C. of Ward No.5 and Naresh Kumar Singla Ex.M.C., visited the police station to lodge the FIR, but the police kept the documents and stated that they will do it at their own.  To support such a contention, the complainant has produced on record his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Ankush Singla Ex.C-2,  affidavit of Naresh Kumar Singla, Ex. M.C. Ex.C-3, affidavit of Mrs. Santosh Bansal, M.C. Ex.C-4 and affidavit of Satish Kumar Ex. MC Ex.C-5.  A bare perusal of all the affidavits clearly reveal that they went to the police station to lodge the FIR on 25.5.2014, but the police only recorded the same on 28.5.2014.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has clearly proved on record that he along with the respectable of Khanauri Mandi went to the police immediately on 25.5.2014 to lodge the FIR about the theft of the vehicle in question.  We may further mention that the vehicle in question was stolen on 25.5.2014, whereas the FIR was recorded on 28.5.2014.  Further Ex.C-14 is the copy of intimation regarding theft of the vehicle given to the OPs which is also dated 25.5.2014, which clearly shows that the intimation of theft was also given to the OPs on the same day.   On the other hand, the OPs have produced only the sworn affidavit of Raman Sharma on record, which is Ex.OP-1.  We have very carefully perused the written reply as well as the affidavit of Raman Sharma, Ex.OP-1, but it nowhere shows that the policy along with the terms and conditions were ever supplied to the complainant, when there is specific allegation of the complainant that he was never supplied the policy as well as its terms and conditions at any time. However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the late submission of the intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the OPs and late intimation of theft to the police.

 

7.               The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since he along with the respectable of Khanauri Mandi went to the police immediately on 25.5.2014 (date of theft of the vehicle), but the police recorded the FIR only on 28.5.2015 after a delay of three days, but in this respect we feel that the action was to be taken only by the police to record the FIR, when the complainant has given the intimation to the police about the theft. To support such a contention, reliance can also be placed on the citation of the Hon’ble National Commission pronounced in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Gurmeet Kaur and others 2015(3) CLT 476, wherein it has been held that if the complainant has given the intimation about theft to the police promptly, then the complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that the OPs should not repudiate the bonafide claims as in the present case Ops have done. To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 (HR), wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sukhram Kashyap versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA/13/272, decided on 11.4.2013 by the Chhattisgarh State Commission, wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) has been relied upon, wherein it has been held that the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.   

 

8.             Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the Ops even did not supply the policy as well as its terms and conditions.  It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Charan Dass 2012(3) CPR 618 (NC), wherein in a case where the vehicle was stolen and the claim was repudiated on the ground that there was inordinate delay of about ten months on giving intimation regarding the theft of vehicle, whereas the case of the complainant is that he was only supplied the cover note, but did not supply the insurance policy and he was not aware of the terms and conditions and there was no clear cut proof of service of policy upon the complainant.  As such, repudiation of the claim was held unjustified.  In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has also cited Modern Insulators Ltd. versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000)1 CPJ (SC). The same is the view of the Hon’ble  National Commission in Paresh Mohanlal Parmar versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others 2011(3) CPJ 146 (NC).

 

9.             Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that in the written reply the OPs have denied the allegations of the complainant by simply saying “denied for want of knowledge” meaning thereby the allegations of the complainant have been admitted.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) versus Muddasani Sarojana 2016(3) RCR (Civil) 236 that denial of a fact by defendant to suit for want of knowledge is no denial at all.  In the present case, the Ops have simply denied the allegations of the complainant in the written reply as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP1.

 

10.           Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The vehicle in question is insured for Rs.3,00,000/- for the period from 12.5.2014 to 11.5.2015 and the theft took place on 24.5.2014 after the period of only 12 days, as such, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of insurance of the vehicle in question. 

 

 

11.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

 

12.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.12.2015 till realisation.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses. We also direct the complainant to execute the necessary documents, if any for transfer of the vehicle in question as required by the OPs.

 

 

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

                Pronounced.

                September 6, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                         

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member