Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 104

                                                          Instituted on     : 09.03.2018

                                                          Decided on       : 17.10.2023

Manish Hooda age 27 years, s/o Sh.  Raj Kumar Hooda R/o H.No. 843/21, Kailash Colony, Jail Road, Rohtak at present H.No.1, Sector-4, Rohtak.

                                                                              ………..Complainant.

                                       Vs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jawahar Market, Model Town, Near D-Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager/Incharge.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..…….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Tarun Hooda, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                                ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of Maruti Ertiga Car bearing registration no. HR-46D-0064, which was insured from opposite party vide policy no. 1120843116P109560439 valid from 16.10.2016 to 15.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-. It is further submitted that on 13.12.2016, the said vehicle has been stolen by unknown accused from Delhi. He intimated the police about theft of the vehicle and FIR no.037427/2016 under Section 379 IPC was registered. The complainant has informed the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle. The police has also filed untraced report as vehicle has not been traced out. The complainant submitted all the required documents and furnished all necessary information to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 02.08.2017 on false ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR and intimating the insurance company. It is also submitted that he is Government employee and due to his service exigencies and due to server down, he could not inform to opposite party on time and lodge the FIR.  As such, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.6,60,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of incident till the date of actual realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that policy was purchased by the complainant from the office of Namsaty Chowk, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. The claim was processed and settled by the office of Ganaur, District Sonipat and theft took place in the jurisdiction of Rani Bagh, Delhi. It is further submitted that theft took place on 13.12.2016 whereas FIR was lodged on 21.12.2016 and intimation was sent to them on 31.01.2017. There is a delay of 49 days regarding the intimation of alleged theft to opposite party. It is also submitted that the complainant did not made any call to the police or as well as any other authority. It is wrong and denied that complainant is doing job and due to his service exigencies and due to server down the complainant could not inform the opposite party and lodged FIR. It is also submitted that claim has been repudiated after proper inquiry and investigation and in the light of terms and conditions of the policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.03.2019. Learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.01.2020.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case the incident took place on 13.12.2016 and FIR was got registered in P.S. e-police station,  District Crime Branch P.S.Rani Bagh Delhi on dated 21.12.2016. The respondent officials were intimated by the complainant on dated 31.01.2017. There is delay of 49 days. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter Ex.R1 on the ground that there is delay in lodging of FIR  and delay in information to the insurer. We have minutely perused the document Ex.C6 placed on record by the complainant. This letter has been written by the ASI Rani Bagh on 21.12.2016 to the Manger United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  Through this letter the police officials itself explained that why the FIR was got registered belatedly. The perusal of this document itself show that occurrence took place on 13.12.2016 and information regarding the incident received in the police station on 14.12.2016 but due to server down, the FIR could not be lodged on time. The complainant was also told by the police officials that he should lodge the FIR through online.  From the perusal of this document it is clear that police officials though received the information regarding the theft of vehicle on 14.12.2016, so as per our opinion the delay has been perfectly explained by the police officials itself. Moreover one another letter has been placed on record by the respondent insurance company as Ex.R3. From this letter the innocence of complainant is proved. He has given written intimation to the opposite party on 31.01.2017 due to the fact that he was only having knowledge that the claim has to be filed on receiving the untraced report and he was not aware about the fact of lodging the claim intimation just after the theft. But perusal of the file reveals that police was informed on the very next day. In this regard we have placed reliance upon  the law submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant in 2017(SUPPL.) CCC 626(S.C) of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr., whereby Hon’ble Court has held that : “If reason of for delay in making claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We have also perused the order of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 titled as Dharmender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Repudiation of claim on ground of delay of 78 days in not informing insurance company of theft-Held, mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that repudiation of claim on the ground of delayed intimation is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. One more objection has been advanced by the respondent counsel for the opposite party that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint but as per our view at this stage,  if the complainant withdraws his complaint on technical grounds, then as per the existence of New Consumer Protection Act 2019, the complainant has jurisdiction to file the complaint before this Commission on the ground that the complainant is resident of Rohtak. Hence this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. As such complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of the vehicle and as per policy Ex.R7, IDV is Rs.660000/-.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.660000/-(Rupees six lac sixty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.03.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party No.1 shall comply with the order dated 17.10.2023 of this Commission within one month. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. As per R.C., the vehicle in question is hypothecated with the HDFC bank Ltd.. Hence the alleged awarded amount shall be paid to the HDFC Bank Ltd. for settlement of loan account of the complainant and after settlement of loan account, if any amount is left, the same shall be paid to the complainant. 

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

17.10.2023

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member