DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/232

Date of Institution : 28.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 05.07.2022

Manpreet Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh resident of VPO Sidhwan, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar.      …Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, having its office at 11A, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Manager/Divisional Manager/ Person over all Incharge.

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 11 and 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present: Sh. Munish Kohli Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Khanna Adv counsel for the opposite party. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg  : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against United India Insurance Company Limited, Amritsar. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is owner of Tractor Arjun 555 bearing registration No. PB-58-H-5614 which was being run by the complainant for earning his livelihood. The complainant got it insured with the opposite party after paying premium of Rs. 8,615/- and opposite party issued Farmer Package Policy No. 200301/47/11/96/00000025 covering the risk for the period from 10.2.2012 to 9.2.2013 for sum insured of Rs. 6,00,000/- which also covered the risk of theft.  

3. It is further alleged that the vehicle was stolen during the covering period of policy from Gali No. 2, Kot Baba Deep Singh and after searching the same for couple of days the police of Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar registered a case of theft under Section 379 IPC vide FIR No. 59 dated 12.4.2012. The opposite party was duly informed by the complainant about the theft of the vehicle and after receiving intimation the opposite party deputed investigator. All the documents as required by the opposite party and investigator were provided to them for the final settlement of the claim and they have taken almost four years to decide the claim of the complainant whereas as per law of IRDA in case of theft the insurance company has to set up claim within the period of three months which is deficiency in service and unfair tractor practice on the part of the opposite party. The investigator also got the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers. But the opposite party vide letter dated 12.9.2016 closed the file of the complainant and repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant on false grounds. The rejection of the claim is on purely technical ground in a mechanical manner and if the reason for delay in making claim is satisfactory explained such claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. No terms and conditions ever supplied by the opposite party to the complainant. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- the sum insured of the stolen vehicle to the complainant. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.

4) To pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of theft till the actual realization of the entire amount.

5) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation. The vehicle was stolen on 16.4.2012 and present claim was repudiated on 12.9.2016 whereas the complaint has been filed after a long unjustified delay, so present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy so same is not maintainable. The intimation of theft of the vehicle is required to be given immediately to the insurance company. The vehicle was allegedly stolen on 16.4.2012 and same was intimated on 24.9.2012 after a long delay of more than 5 months so the claim was repudiated on merits. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts. The alleged date of loss is 16.4.2012 and intimation to the police was given on 2.5.2012 after more than two weeks whereas to intimate the police immediately after the loss which he failed to do. The insurance company asked the complainant vide letters dated 15.5.2013 and 7.9.2013 to submit NCRB, duplicate RC, original FIR, untraced report under Section 173 and 2nd key of the vehicle. On failure of the insured to supply the requisite documents a final notice was sent to the insured wherein he was informed that the claim would be closed if he failed to comply within 10 days of final notice. But the insured never approached the opposite party. However, after a lapse of 2-1/2 years the complainant requested the insurance company vide letter dated 30.5.2016 to reopen the claim. The complainant kept sleeping over his rights for 2-1/2 years after the final notice regarding the closure of the claim and woken up when the limitation of his claim has already expired. The complainant has violated the another condition i.e. Duty to care and failed to take care of his vehicle. The complainant kept his vehicle parked outside instead of parking the same in a proper parking lot. It is the duty of the insured to take all reasonable steps to save his vehicle from the loss or damage and maintain it in efficient condition. The parties to the complaint are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. The contract of insurance is based on utmost faith and in this regard it is submitted that by concealing material facts it is apparent that the complainant have used fraudulent means for getting wrong claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 

5. On merits, the opposite party admitted the obtaining of insurance policy by the complainant from the opposite party. The opposite party submitted the same submissions on merits as submitted in the preliminary objections of the written version, so there is no need to repeat the same. However, lastly the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of Aadhaar Card of Manpreet Singh Ex.C-1, copy of certificate issued by Station House Officer Ex.C-2, copy of untraced report Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 30.5.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of driving license Ex.C-5, copy of Farmer Package Policy Ex.C-6, copy of RC of vehicle Ex.C-7, copy of Aadhhar Card Ex.C-8, copy of registered envelope Ex.C-9, copy of letter dated 12.9.2016 Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party   tendered in evidence affidavit of HK Prinja Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1/1, copy of letter dated 15.5.2013 Ex.OP-1/2, copy of repudiation letter dated 12.9.2016 Ex.OP-1/3, letters/reminders given by opposite party Ex.OP-1/4 to Ex.OP-1/8, copy of letter of the complainant Ex.OP-1/9 and closed the evidence.  

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. 

9. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he had taken the insurance policy for his tractor Arjun 555 bearing registration No. PB-58-H-5614 and said vehicle was stolen during the covering period of policy from Gali No. 2, Kot Baba Deep Singh and after searching the same for couple of days the police of Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar registered a case of theft under Section 379 IPC vide FIR No. 59 dated 12.4.2012. The opposite party was duly informed by the complainant about the theft of the vehicle and after receiving intimation the opposite party deputed investigator. All the documents as required by the opposite party and investigator were provided to them for the final settlement of the claim and they have taken almost four years to decide the claim of the complainant whereas as per law of IRDA in case of theft the insurance company has to set up claim within the period of three months which is deficiency in service and unfair tractor practice on the part of the opposite party. The insurance company repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.9.2016 on the ground of delay intimation.

10. On the other hand the opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the vehicle was stolen on 16.4.2012 and present claim was repudiated on 12.9.2016. The opposite party further alleged that the  intimation of theft of the vehicle is required to be given immediately to the insurance company. The vehicle was allegedly stolen on 16.4.2012 and same was intimated on 24.9.2012 after a long delay of more than 5 months so the claim was repudiated on merits. The alleged date of loss is 16.4.2012 and intimation to the police was given on 2.5.2012 after more than two weeks whereas to intimate the police immediately after the loss which he failed to do. The opposite party further alleged in the written version that the complainant has not provided the documents and second key of the vehicle despite repeated reminders. 

11. The insurance company admitted the insurance policy of the vehicle. On the perusal of the record and evidence produced by both the parties it established that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen during the policy period. To establish this fact the complainant had produced the untraced report under Section 173 Cr.PC i.e. Ex.C-3. On the other hand the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of late intimation of theft to the insurance company as well as to the police authorities. The repudiation letter is Ex.C-10. 

12. The only dispute in the present case is regarding the delay intimation to the insurance company as well as the police authorities. Rest averments are admitted by the opposite party. 

13. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5705 of 2021 titled as Dharamender Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others in which the Hon'ble National Commission repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay intimation. In the above said appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and complaint of the complainant was allowed.

14. The learned counsel for the complainant also produced the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in revision petition No. 948 of 2018 titled Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagpal Singh in which the Hon'ble National Commission rejected the delay intimation ground of the insurance company and allowed the complaint of the complainant in theft case. 

15. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant has intimated the police about after two weeks from the theft but opposite party failed to produce any evidence vide which it established that the complainant has not intimated the police immediately. On the other hand the complainant has produced the untraced report filed by the police before the Magistrate as Ex.C-3. Even, opposite party have not produced report of investigator on the court file. It is very surprised that the claim was intimated to the insurance company in the year 2012 and the police has submitted the untraced report in the year 2013 but the insurance company had took four years to decide the claim of the complainant and insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.9.2016. There is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 

16. From the above discussion, it is established that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen during the policy period. Therefore,  present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant as insured amount alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,500/- as costs and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        5th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member