Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 57.
Instituted on : 04.02.2019.
Decided on : 23.06.2022.
Ashok Kumar age 37 year s/o Sh. Suraj Mal resident of H.No.398, Village Nirampur The. Gohana District Sonipat.
......................Complainant.
Vs.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its divisional Manager, Karnal-Kaithal Road, Main Kaithal Road, Kaithal.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, D-Park, Model town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
...........…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Prinkal Khurana, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.S.Malik Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of Car no.HR-11G-3832 and the same was insured with the respondents vide policy No.1107053115P111510792 for the period from 30.12.2015 to 29.11.2016 against an assured amount of Rs.763141/-. The said car was stolen on 28.08.2016 from Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Rohtak and at the same time the police was informed and on the basis of the statement made by the complainant an FIR No.0425 dated 28.08.2016 was registered in P.S.Urban Estate Rohtak. The complainant duly intimated the respondents regarding the theft of alleged car. The complainant furnished all the required documents to the respondents and also submitted untraced report dated 14.07.2018 . But despite repeated requests of the complainant, no claim amount has been paid to the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.763141/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their reply submitting therein that the vehicle no.HR-11-G-3832 was insured for a period of 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016 with the opposite party No.1. The said car was allegedly theft on 27.08.2016 and intimation was sent to the company on 22.09.2016. There is delay of 26 days regarding the intimation of alleged theft to the opposite parties. Delay regarding the intimation to the company deprived the insurance company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted in alleged theft of car and make endeavour to recover the same. Opposite party wrote letters dated 13.12.2016, 16.06.2017, 28.08.2017 and reminder dated 06.09.2017 to the complainant to submit the final untraced report u/s 173Cr.P.C duly accepted by the Court and ignition keys, so that opposite party may proceed further for settling the claim but inspite of many letters, reminders and through mobile phone messages complainant did not comply with the requisite documents which are necessary in settling the claim. Lastly company has no alternative to settle the claim as “No Claim”. A repudiation letter dated 19.09.2017 was issued by the opposite party which was received by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite pariesy and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.05.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on 04.03.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. Opposite party has repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that theft had allegedly taken place on 27.08.2016 and intimation was sent to the company on 22.09.2016. There is delay of 26 days regarding the intimation of alleged theft to the opposite parties and that the letters dated 13.12.2016, 16.06.2017, 28.08.2017, and reminder dated 06.09.2017 were sent to the complainant to submit the final untraced report u/s 173Cr.P.C duly accepted by the court and ignition keys but complainant did not submit the requisite documents which are necessary in settling the claim. To prove the same opposite parties have placed on record copy of letters Ex.R6 to Ex.R10.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the letters issued by the opposite parties, they have sought untraced report from Court and ignition keys. As per the copy of untraced report Ex.P5, the same was supplied by the Court on 24.07.2018 whereas the letters were issued by the opposite parties on dated 13.12.2016, 16.06.2017, 28.08.2017 and reminder dated 06.09.2017 i.e. prior to issuance of report by the Court. Hence it was not possible for the complainant to supply the untraced report upto 24.07.2018 and the same was supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties after receiving the same from the Court. Hence the plea taken by the opposite parties that untraced report was not supplied is not tenable. Regarding the submission of keys of vehicle, complainant has placed on record copy of Lost Property Report Ex.P8, as per which original key of vehicle no.HR-11G-3832 has been lost. Regarding the delayed intimation to the insurance company, it is observed that as per letter Ex.R4 and statement Ex.R5 complainant had given information about the theft immediately on 100 No. to the police and police after the spot verification, lodged the FIR on the very next day. It is further submitted by the complainant in this letter that he was no knowledge about giving intimation to the insurance company so he given late intimation to the company and he has also apologized for the same. Regarding the delayed intimation to the company, we have placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.1069 of 2022 decided on 11.02.2022 titled as Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 decided on 13.09.2021 in case titled as Dharamender Vs. UIIC, as well as Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “When insured lodged FIR immediately after theft of a vehicle occurred and when police after investigation have lodged a final report after vehicle was not traced and when surveyors/investigators appointed by insurance company found claim of theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny claim-Lodging of FIR on same day theft occurred-Therefore, denial of claim set aside”. The law cited above, are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case also, FIR was lodged on the very next day of theft. The untraced report has already been submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties. As such complainant is entitled for the insurance claim and opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle in question to the complainant. Perusal of insurance policy shows that the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.763141/-. As per the copy of RC Ex.P1, the vehicle in question was hypothecated with Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd. but as per copy of document Ex.P7, the NOC has been issued by Mahindra finance for the vehicle No.HR11G383 and the new R.C. Ex.P6 is also placed on record, whereby hypothecation has been removed.
7. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the compliant and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.763141/- (Rupees seven lac sixty three thousand one hundred and forty one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.02.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities e.g. letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. and to submit indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 23.06.2022 of this Commission within one month from the date of submission of alleged documents by the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.06.2022.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
