Haryana

Kaithal

218/21

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.M.K Sharma

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.218/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.09.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:21.04.2023.

Baljeet Singh age 46 years S/o Sh. Mewa Singh, resident of Village Ramgarh Pandwa, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Micro Office Kalayat, near Kapil Muni Mahilla College, Railway Road Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, First Floor, SCO-97, Sector-17, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118, Tehsil & Distt. Kurukshetra.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. & Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. M.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Baljeet Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration No.HR-64-6231 with the OPs vide policy bearing No.1126823119P109728554 valid for the period w.e.f. 26.10.2019 to 25.10.2020.  The said insured truck had been stolen on 29.03.2020 from Yogesh Petrol Pump Kalayat during the lockdown period spreading of the Corona Virus and the complainant lodged a FIR bearing No.74 dt. 29.03.2020 under Section 379 IPC in P.S.Kalayat.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the required documents as demanded by the OPs but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant is contractor by profession and vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose and complainant has taken commercial policy, so, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer; that the complainant has given statement that both original keys had been lost and complainant has given duplicate key to answering OPs.  It is gross violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.  The complainant parked his vehicle at Petrol Pump unattended for long period, so, he willfully violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy.  The insured complainant had intimated the insurance company after about 15 days of the alleged theft.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration No.HR-64-6231 with the OPs vide policy bearing No.1126823119P109728554 valid for the period w.e.f. 26.10.2019 to 25.10.2020.  The said insured truck had been stolen on 29.03.2020 from Yogesh Petrol Pump Kalayat during the lockdown period spreading of the Corona Virus and the complainant lodged a FIR bearing No.74 dt. 29.03.2020 under Section 379 IPC in P.S.Kalayat.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the required documents as demanded by the OPs but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur etc. 2015(3) CLT 476 (Hon’ble National Commission); Shailendra Yadav Vs. OIC 2018(1) CPJ 16 (Madhya Pradesh State Commission) and Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ved Pal and another 2014(4) PLR 595 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) 

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops has argued that vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose and complainant has taken commercial policy, so, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer.  It is further argued that the complainant has given statement that both original keys had been lost and complainant has given duplicate key to OPs, which is gross violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.  It is further argued that the complainant parked his vehicle at Petrol Pump unattended for long period while it was the duty of complainant to park his vehicle with the safety purpose, so, he willfully violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy.  It is further argued that the insured complainant had intimated the insurance company after about 15 days of the alleged theft.  Ld. counsel for the OPs have placed reliance upon the case law titled as Lokesh Kapoor Vs. NIC 2022(1) CPJ 31 (NC); Amit Shukla Vs. Deputy GM, UII 2019(1) CLT 618 (M.P.State Commission) and NIC Vs. Rameshwar Lal etc. 2020(1) CLT 16 (NC).    

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was stolen on 29.03.2020 during the lockdown period spreading of Corona Virus and the complainant lodged FIR bearing No.74 under Section 379 IPC in P.S. Kalayat immediately on the same day.  It is also not disputed that untraced report was submitted by the police and the same was accepted by the court of Sh. Parmod Kumar, the then JMIC, Kaithal vide order dt. 09.12.2020 as per Annexure-C5.  So, it means that the vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown person.  The main objection of OPs is that there was delay of 15 days in giving intimation to the Ops and both original keys had been lost by the complainant.  No doubt, the complainant has violated the terms and condition No.1 & 9 of insurance policy but there would have been no justification for the OPs for denying the claim of complainant in its entirely only for such violation of terms and condition.  In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in II(2006) CPJ page 83 (NC), wherein, it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that in case of violation of condition of policy as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis. In the authority titled as Mohammad Ejaj Vs.UII, 2014(4) CLT page 161 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana), it has been held that Insurance Claim-Repudiation-On the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. and 36 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to the Insurance Companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of F.I.R. and late intimation to the Insurance Company-Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to Insurance Companies which are binding upon them-Appeal accepted. In the authority cited in 2016(2) CLT page 434 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana) titled as Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satbir, wherein the head-note, it is mentioned that Insurance claim-Theft of insured tractor-Prompt FIR-Delay of 66 days in intimation to insurance company-Held-In the Circular Ref:IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated September 20, 2011 issued by ‘IRDA’, it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”-Insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant-Appeal dismissed.

9.             The above authorities are fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas, the case law relied upon by the ld. counsel for the OPs are not applicable to the present case and are distinguished being rested on different footings.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the claim in respect of vehicle in question should have been settled by the OPs on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement. Therefore, the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant in toto. 

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured value (Rs.9,90,000/- as per Annexure-C3) which becomes Rs.7,42,500/- within 45 days from today.  However, the complainant is directed to submit the subrogation letter and cancellation of ownership of vehicle in question obtained from the concerned Registering Authority within 30 days with the Ops.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that if the OPs are failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.7,42,500/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.