BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 512 of 2015

Date of Institution: 18.08.2015

Date of Decision: 05.05.2016

Inderjit Singh son of S.Ajmer Singh, resident of H.No. 93, Gali No.6, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Ms.Neena Kapoor, Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Inderjit Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased one car TATA INDIGO ECS LX CR4 from Automobile Kapoor’s India Private Limited, Amritsar bearing registration No.PB02-BW-8301 (Temp.No.PB T 0382) after taking loan from HDFC Bank Limited which was insured with Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.5,94,302/= / Rs.5,64,587/- vide cover note No. 2003023112004288 dated 11.7.2012 i.e. at the time of purchase as per the value of the new car. Opposite Party charged Rs.15,378/- for the insurance of the vehicle in question. The delivery of the vehicle was taken by the complainant from the dealer on later date. After purchase of the vehicle in question, on 11.8.2012 evening the car was stolen and the matter was  reported to P.S. B.Division, Amritsar who lodged report/ FIR under section 379 IPC on 12.8.2012. The matter was reported to Opposite Party as well, who appointed Sh.Surinder Kumar Seth as investigator, who investigated the matter and gave his report to Opposite Party vide report dated 12.11.2012 wherein he leveled the claim of the complainant as genuine. Thus, under instructions of Opposite Party, said investigator obtained consent letter from the complainant for settlement of the claim at Rs.5,45,580/-. Vide letter dated 19.8.2013, Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the date of theft, the vehicle was unregistered despite the fact that the investigator himself satisfied from the dealer (Automobile Kapoor’s India Private Limited, Amritsar) that on the date of theft, the registration of the vehicle in question was already under process. The said act of Opposite Party of repudiating the claim of the complainant arbitrarily, on flimsy grounds, is gross  deficiency in service causing financial loss, as well as harassment and mental agony to the complainant, making the complainant entitled  for compensation for such deficient act of Opposite Party. As such, the complainant has prayed for the following relief:-

a)       to pay Rs.5,64,587/- per insurance policy, with interest 2 18% per annum from the date of loss, till its payment.

b)      to  pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment as well as mental agony as well.

c)       to pay cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.21,000/-

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has tried to conceal the material facts from this Forum, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief; that the complainant is estopped by his on act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It has been stated that the insured has concealed the material facts meaning thereby has violated the terms and conditions of the policy covered under the insurance policy. The claim of the insured has been repudiated as the insured has not fulfilled the formalities required to substantial the claim after reporting the matter to Opposite Party from the date of theft, keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy and that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits,  so far as the facts  relating to the ownership of vehicle in question and insurance are concerned, the same are matter of record. The factum of  repudiation of the claim of theft is subject to terms and conditions of the policy  and the investigator has also reported that vehicle in question was not registered on the date of theft of vehicle. There is no negligence  on the part of the Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice for the sale of vehicle Ex.C2, copy of insurance cover Ex.C3, copy of FIR Ex.C4, copy of report of investigator Ex.C5,  copy of certificate of Automobile Kapoor Ex.C6, copy of consent letter Ex.C7, copy of sale certificate Ex.C8, copy of registration detail Ex.C9, copy of application for registration of vehicle Ex.C10, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld.counsel for  Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Parminder Singh Mann, Deputy Manager Ex.OP1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.   

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one TATA INDIGO ECS LX CR4 from Automobile Kapoor’s India Private Limited, Amritsar bearing registration No.PB02-BW-8301 (Temp.No.PB T 0382) after taking loan from HDFC Bank Limited which was insured with Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.5,94,302/= / Rs.5,64,587/- vide cover note No. 2003023112004288 dated 11.7.2012. It is further not disputed that at the time of purchase, the vehicle in dispute was insured and the Opposite Party charged Rs.15,378/- for the insurance of the vehicle in question.  It is also not disputed that on 11.8.2012 the vehicle in question was stolen. The     matter was  reported to P.S. B.Division, Amritsar who lodged report/ FIR under section 379 IPC on 12.8.2012, copy of the FIR whereof accounts for Ex.C4. It is also not disputed that  the matter was reported to Opposite Party who appointed Sh.Surinder Kumar Seth as investigator. The investigator has investigated the matter and gave his report to Opposite Party vide report dated 12.11.2012, copy whereof is Ex.C5. It is also not disputed that the claim of the complainant was found to be genuine by the investigator. But however, vide letter dated 19.8.2012 the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of theft, the vehicle was unregistered. Copy of the repudiation letter is Ex.C11. But however, the car in dispute was issued with temporary registration number which was valid at the time of date of theft and further fact that the registration of the vehicle was already under process and this fact has been admitted by the investigator in his report. From the perusal of the evidence on record as well as documentary proof relied upon by the complainant, it becomes evident that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Opposite Party, without valid and legal ground. Very fact that the claim was  declined on the ground that the vehicle was unregistered at the time of theft, is totally baseless and the order of the repudiation has no legs to stand on. Not only that the investigator found the claim to be genuine and also got the consent of the complainant for the settlement of the claim at Rs.5,45,580/-, copy of the consent letter accounts for Ex.C7. After that there was absolutely no reason with the Opposite Party to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.Ramareddy II(2006) CPJ 339 (NC) that surveyor’s report is an important piece of evidence. Compensation can be awarded only on the basis of surveyor’s report.  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Sri Venkateshwar Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II(2010) CPJ 1 (SC) has held that the report of the surveyor is to be given due importance and weighage and it can not be brushed aside without valid reasons.    

7.       From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that repudiation of claim has erroneously been made by the Opposite Party. The complainant is entitled to claim compensation to the tune of Rs.5,45,580/- as per report of the investigator Ex.C5 on account of theft of the car in dispute & we hold accordingly

8.       Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds  and the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,45,580/- to the complainant as compensation on the basis of report of investigator,  subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question  in favour of the Opposite Party, by the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which amount awarded will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order until full & final recovery.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 05.05.2016.                                                         (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                                    President

                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member

hrg