DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 188 of 28.5.2019

                                      Decided on:   3.9.2021

Jugal Kishore @ Jugal Kumar, son of Late Jiwan Dass, resident of H.No.591, St.No.6, Tripuri Town, Patiala village Allowal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Lower Mall, Opp. Polo Ground, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.R.K.Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OPs.                               

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Jugal Kishore @ Jugal Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of Swift Dzire car bearing registration No.PB-11-BW-2898, model 2015 and the said car has been duly got insured with the OP vide policy No.0428003117P112744159 for the period from 9.12.2017 to 8.12.2018 and the complainant paid the premium for the same. The IDV/insured value of the said vehicle was assessed as Rs.4,87,318/-.
3. It is averred that Naresh Kumar son of the complainant used to drive the said car. It is further averred that on 20.3.2018 Naresh Kumar alongwith his wife and children went to Mata Kali Devi Mandir, Patiala and parked the vehicle in question at about 5.30 PM near the office of BSNL Baradari Garden, Patiala and locked the same properly. It is further averred that at about 6.15PM, when Naresh Kumar alongwith his family came back he found that the car was missing. FIR No.0025 dated 20.3.2018 was lodged under Section 379 IPC with P.S.Division No.4.Patiala.Thereafter the complainant also lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the documents for payment of amount of claim but no claim has been paid by the OP.
4. It is further averred that vide letter dated 12.3.2019, it was informed to the complainant that the claim lodged by the complainant has been closed due to non submitting of “non traceable report”. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 30.4.2019 upon the OP for the payment of claim amount but to no effect. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP which caused mental agony, tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,87,318/- ; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim and also to pay Rs.15000/- as costs of litigation.
5. Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. Preliminary objections have been raised to the extent that the present complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been filed as ‘no claim’ vide letter dated 12.3.2019 and that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint.
6. On merits, issuance of Private car package policy for the car in question is admitted. It is pleaded that on receipt of intimation of loss on 21.3.2018 the OP immediately deputed its Investigator Sh.Bhag Singh to investigate the loss. It is further submitted that the insured was requested vide letter dated 19.6.2018 for the supply of Non traceable report and original keys and when he failed to supply the same again letter dated 9.11.2018 was written. But again he failed to supply the same and reminder dated 6.12.2018 was issued but to no effect and ultimately on 12.3.2019 the claim was declared as no claim. It is pleaded that the claim has been processed and dealt with by the OP as per terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. consel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.
8. The Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Dinesh Goyal, Dy Manager of the OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel has argued that the complainant is owner of car bearing No.PB-11-BW-2898, model 2015 and got the same insured with the insurance company for the period from 9.12.2017 to 8.12.2018 and total premium was paid and the insurance value of the vehicle was Rs.4,87,318/-.It is further argued that the son of the complainant used to drive the said car and on 20.3.2018 he  alongwith his family visited  Mata Kali Devi Mandir and at about 5.30PM parked the said car near the office of BSNL Bardari Garden Patiala and locked the same properly. The ld. counsel further argued that when he came back at about 6.15PM the son of the complainant found that the car was missing. FIR No.25 dated 20.3.2018 under Section 379 IPC was lodged with P.S.Division No.4, Patiala. The ld. counsel further argued that the claim was lodged with the OP but nothing has been paid. In support of his submissions, the ld. counsel has relied upon the citation  The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chhotelal Sahu 2017(4) C.P.J.30 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(Raipur),wherein it has been held: Theft of insured vehicle-FIR lodged-Insurer Intimated-Surveyor appointed-Non settlement of claim-Complaint filed before Distt.Forum alleging deficiency in service-Complaint allowed-Hence, present appeal-Merely the vehicle was parked in front of the house of the respondent(complainant),it cannot be held that the respondent(complainant left the vehicle unattended-The vehicle of the respondent(complainant) was stolen and all relevant documents were given by the respondent(complainant) to all the appellant(O.P.) for settlement of his claim-Therefore, the respondent(complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the appellant(O.P.)”.He has also placed reliance upon the citations United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ajit Pal & Ors. 1(2019) CPJ 452(NC) and Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Kumar Verma 2018(1)CLT 202.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as the claim has already been filed as ‘no claim’ on 12.3.2019.However, it is admitted that Private Car Package Policy was issued in the name of the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that on receipt of intimation of loss Investigator was appointed who found that the car was parked unlocked in an unauthorized parking. The ld. counsel further argued that no reasonable care of the car in question was taken by the complainant while parking the same. He has relied upon the citation New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravin Krushna Takari 1(2018)CPJ 80(NC).
12. To prove this case the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint.Ex.C1 is the insurance policy showing the IDV of the car as Rs.4.87.318/- and the total premium of Rs.14959/-was paid. It was valid from 9 December,2017 to midnight 8 December,2018.Ex.C2 is registration certificate,Ex.C3 is copy of FIR dated 20.3.2018 of P.S.Division No.4,Patiala under Section 379 IPC, in which it is mentioned that the car was stolen.Ex.C4 is the Motor claim intimation slip of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ex.C5 e-mail dated 12.3.2019 written by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to Jugal Kishore and his claim was closed due to Non Traceable Report, Ex.C6 is legal notice, Ex.C7 is postal receipt,Ex.C8 is the letter dated 11.9.2018 written to SSP, Patiala ,Ex.C9 is circular of  insurance company.
13. On the other hand Sh.Dinesh Goel, Deputy Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is the insurance policy, Ex.OP2 is repudiation of claim. There is acceptance of untraceable report on the file and the same was accepted by the police on 14.9.2019.
14. As all the proceedings before this Commission are summary in nature, so the documents of criminal court although not exhibited on the file, can be taken into consideration without  allowing the application for additional evidence.
15. So as per the complaint Sh.Naresh Kumar son of the complainant used to drive the car No.PB-11-BW-2898 which was duly insured with the OP on 9.12.2017 to midnight 8.12.2018 with the IDV of Rs.4,87,318/- vide policy,Ex.C1. Copy of RC is Ex.C2.
16. Admittedly on 20.3.2018 the son of the complainant parked the vehicle near the office of BSNL, Baradari Garden Patiala and the same was stolen and FIR, Ex.C3 was lodged with Police Station Division No.4 Patiala,Ex.C4 is Motor Claim intimation slip and Ex.C5 is repudiation of claim. As already stated above the FIR was detailed and untraced report was admitted by the Judicial Magistrate. In fact it is the duty of the insurance company to get the relevant documents from the concerned police authorities/station and the complainant is not liable to submit the same. It is pertinent to mention here that, in the judgment  titled as Darshan Kaur Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004(2) C.P.J.583  of the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (Jaipur),  it has been held as under:

“Consumer Protection Act,1986-Section 17 (1) (b) Motor Insurance-theft of vehicle-Non –settlement of claim-claim cannot be forfeited due to failing to produce documents which are not in possession of complainant- complainant under no statutory or contractual obligation to produce copy of F.R. from the possession of police-Insurance company is liable.

Further in the judgment titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishan Kumar Bhasin 2014(1) C.P.J.34, passed by of Uttarkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Dehradun, it has been held as under:

“Consumer Protection Act,1986 Sections 2(1)(g),15 Insurance-Theft of vehicle-Non settlement of claim-Final report not submitted-Deficiency in service-complainant was owner of truck which was comprehensively insured-Truck was stolen by some un known persons and driver and conductor were murdered-Insurance company failed to prove that final report is essential for settlement of claim-Vehicle had been stolen during subsistence of policy and same had not been recovered by police authorities-Vehicle was insured….”

17. So, due to our aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the vehicle was insured. It was stolen, FIR was lodged. Claim was also lodged and FIR of untraced report was accepted. So the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,87,318/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant .  

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:3.9.2021         

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar     Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                                    President