BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 2021

Date of Institution: 1.6.2021

                                                          Date of Decision: 13.3.2023

Narinder Pal S/o Joginder Pal R/o H.No. 328, Rajinder Nagar, Tung Bala, Amritsar 9876703950

Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office I, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Result : Complaint Disposed off

Counsel for the parties  :

For the  Complainants                  : Sh. Davinder Gujral,Adv.

For the Opposite Party                 : Sh. Kamal Kishore Thakur, Adv..

CORAM

Mr.Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President

Mrs.Mandeep Kaur, Member

Mr.Lakhwinder Pal Gill, Member

ORDER:-

Mr.Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by the complainant u/s   35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Brief facts and pleadings

1.       Brief facts of the case are that  the  complainant is owner of vehicle Canter Eicher bearing No. PB10-BV-8437 which was got insured  with the opposite party vide policy No. 0826873117P105343926 valid from 13.7.2017 to 12.7.2018 after paying premium of Rs. 21,217/-.   On 25.1.2018 at about 8.30 p.m. the said vehicle was being parked at Bhai Ghanhaiya Market, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar duly locked by the complainant and his driver and went to his house. Thereafter on 27.1.2018 at about 11.00 a.m. when the complainant came back to Bhai Ghanhaiya Market, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar where the said vehicle was parked  and found that the said vehicle was missing /stolen from said parking place. The complainant tried to locate the same nearby but to no avail. Immediately on 27.1.2018 the complainant reported the matter to the police and police started investigated the matter and got regd an  FIR No. 0032 dated 30.1.2018 at P.S. A Division, Amritsar. On the same day the opposite party  was also informed  regarding the theft of the vehicle  and as per the requirement the complainant duly provided the documents as required by the opposite party. The investigation of the said theft was conducted by   Dr. Simerjit Singh Bawa, Investigator as deputed by the opposite party  and as per his requirement the complainant duly provided the documents and two keys of vehicle were also sent to the opposite party vide memo No. 36 dated 15.8.2019. As such the complainant provided  the documents from time to time. The  complainant again  received letter dated 29.1.2020 sought some clarification and demand of documents which were already provided to the complainant. Thereafter number of times, the complainant visited the opposite party but till date the opposite party is not giving any satisfactory reply and till date the claim has not been settled inspite of completing all the formalities by the complainant. The aforesaid act of the opposite  party amounts to deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

 (a)     Opposite  party be directed to release the sum insured i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant.

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

(c)      Opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses to  the complainant.

(d)     Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled be also awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared  and filed written version in which it was submitted that no requisite documents were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party even  letter dated 29.1.2020 demanding relevant papers  /explanations were issued to the complainant , hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to the rejected on this sole ground. It was denied that on 25.1.2018 the said vehicle was being parked at Bhai Ghanhaiya Market, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar duly locked by the complainant and his driver and went to his house. It was denied that on 27.1.2018 at about 11. A.m. when the complainant came back to the market where the said vehicle was parked and found that the said vehicle was missing/stolen . As per condition of the policy, it was the duty of the complainant to park the alleged vehicle in a proper parking place under well security. Further the complainant has not supplied the driving license of himself or his alleged driver namely Jatinder Singh for the proper verification. It was denied that on 27.1.2018 complainant reported the matter to the police and police started investigating the  matter and got registered FIR on 30.1.2018. From the FIR it is clear that the complainant has approached the police very late i.e. 30.1.2018 and reported the matter to police on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. So the complainant has intentionally delayed the information of the alleged theft to the police  which give presumption that the complainant  himself has  removed the said alleged vehicle from the market and reported the matter to police with sufficient delay. Condition No.1 of the policy clearly says that “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence  of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter  the insured shall give all such Information and assistance as the company shall require…..”. So , it was the duty of the complainant to first lodge the report regarding the alleged theft of the truck in question  with the concerned police authorities on the same day of alleged occurrence. The complainant has failed to perform his duties and to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. That is why the opposite party had issued letter dated 29.1.2020 to the complainant and to show in which office he had filed the claim intimation and to supply the said intimation with receiving and stamping of the office where the said intimation was deposited. Copy of road tax alongwith the proof of informing to the police at dial 100 number was also demanded from the complainant. Beside it appointing of proof of driver, supply of second original key and explanation for parking the alleged vehicle without any security was also demanded from the complainant vide letter dated 29.1.2020 but no such information was given by the complainant to the opposite party. Due to this un-cooperative behavior of the complainant the claim of the claimant could not be decided  for which the complainant himself is at fault. While submitting that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

Evidence of the parties and Arguments

3.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of policy Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of NCRB Ex.C-4, copy of non traceable report Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 29.1.2020 Ex.C-6.

4.       On the other hand opposite party alongwith written version  has filed affidavit of   Sh. Darshan Kumar ,SDM, copy of policy Ex.OP1.

5.       We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file .  We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties.

Findings

6.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case  there was not denial the fact that complainant got insured his vehicle Canter Eicher bearing No. PB10-BV-8437 with the opposite party vide policy No. 0826873117P105343926 valid from 13.7.2017 to 12.7.2018, copy of policy is Ex.C-1. It  was also not disputed that the insured truck was stolen on 27.1.2018 when it was parked  at Bhai Ghanhaiya Masrket, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar.  It is the case of the complainant that opposite party was duly intimated on the same day and on the investigation conducted by Dr. Simerjit Singh Bawa, Investigator and as per his requirement the complainant duly provided the documents  and two keys of vehicle  as sought vide memo No. 36 dated 15.8.2019. The complainant also placed on record copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of NCRB Ex.C-4, copy of non traceable report Ex.C-5.  On the other hand the only plea taken by the opposite party is that complainant has not submitted the documents/explanation as sought  vide  letter dated 29.1.2020  and as the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 27.1.2018 but from the FIR it is clear that the complainant has approached the police very late i.e. 30.1.2018 . So the complainant has intentionally delayed the information of the alleged theft to the police  with sufficient delay.

7.       From the above discussion, the only ground taken by the opposite party is that  the complainant has not submitted the documents as required vide letter dated 29.1.2020. On the other hand the contention of the complainant is that he provided the documents as required by the investigator  and two keys of vehicle  vide memo No. 36 dated 15.8.2019. However, perusal of the evidence produced on record by the complainant  shows that no such memo No. 36 dated 15.8.2019 has been placed on record by the complainant which may prove that requisite documents  as well as keys and NCRB/Untraced report etc. were submitted to the opposite party.  However, perusal of the letter dated 29.1.2020 shows that the information sought by the opposite party that in which office he had filed the claim intimation and to supply the said intimation with receiving and stamping of the office where the said intimation was deposited. Copy of road tax alongwith the proof of informing to the police at dial 100 number was also demanded from the complainant. Beside it appointing of proof of driver, supply of second original key and explanation for parking the alleged vehicle without any security was also demanded from the complainant vide letter dated 29.1.2020 but no such information was given by the complainant to the opposite party. But we are not fully agreed with the information sought by the opposite party  vide letter dated 29.1.2020 as demand of road tax alongwith the proof of informing to the police at dial 100 number, appointing of proof of driver and explanation for parking the alleged vehicle without any security is not  genuine as  the vehicle was  in stationary condition, as such proof of road tax is not required. Similarly there is no requirement of appointment of proof of driver as the vehicle was stolen  and the claim is not for accident of vehicle  where the genuineness of the driver is required to be investigated, as such the said demand is also not seems to be genuine. The other information sought vide letter dated 29.1.2020 to give explanation for parking the alleged vehicle without any security  is also not genuine. As the vehicle was parked at Bhai Ghanhaiya Market, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar where many other vehicles are parked by the customers and it cannot be said that the complainant left the vehicle on road side at an isolated place. So the said demand of the opposite party is also not genuine. No doubt the complainant alongwith complaint has placed on record copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of NCRB Ex.C-4, copy of non traceable report Ex.C-5  but has failed to prove that such documents were ever supplied to the opposite party. So, we are of the view that although, as alleged by the complainant that he has already submitted the  documents with the Opposite Party, but to settle the claim case of the complainant, there is no hitch to the complainant, if the  documents  such as copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of NCRB Ex.C-4, copy of non traceable report Ex.C-5 to the opposite party. The other information as sought by the opposite party vide letter dated 29.1.2020 such as copy of road tax alongwith the proof of informing to the police at dial 100 number as well as appointment of proof of driver is not genuine and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The other ground taken by the opposite party is that as the vehicle was stolen on 27.1.2018 where as matter was reported to the police vide FIR No. 32 dated 30.1.2018. But, however, the opposite party cannot reject the claim only on the ground of delayed intimation  as the rejection of claim  should be based on  valid grounds. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. wherein  it was held that :

“It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the  Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”

8.       In such circumstances, we  dispose of the complaint with the direction to the complainant to submit the documents such as copy of RC , copy of FIR , copy of NCRB report, copy of non traceable report and to complete all other formalities with the Opposite Party within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order  and if any document is not possible to supply, the complainant will furnish an affidavit with the opposite party and consequently,  Opposite Party shall process and make good of the claim of the complainant positively within further 30 days as per IRDA guidelines from the date of receipt of required documents from the complainant. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the fresh complaint after the final settlement of his claim, if he still not satisfies with the decision of Opposite Party .   Copies of the orders 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 commission.

Announced in Open Commission               (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra)                                                                                                                                                                                                President

Dated: 13.3.2023

(Lakhwinder Pal Gill)         ( Mandeep Kaur )               

Member                      Member