Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/644/2014

Ram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Munish KUmar Adv.

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	644 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	10.12.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	13.1.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ram Singh son of Sh. Ajaib Singh r/o H. No.8, Indra Colony, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. SCO No. 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its incharge/regional manager.

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

         As per the case, the complainant purchased a second hand vehicle make tata ACE BS III (loader) having chassis No. MAT4450519VG22216 and registration No.CH04-K-1985. As per rules the insurance cover as well as the registration certificate of the vehicle was got transferred in the name of the complainant. The vehicle was insured with Opposite Party w.e.f. 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2014.  on 3.12.2013 the said vehicle was got stolen by some unknown person. An FIR Annexure C-4 in this regard was lodged by the complainant. Thereafter theft claim was lodged with the Opposite Party. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the Opposite Party. Un-trace report was also given by the police. The complainant as per wish of the Opposite Party submitted residence proof and other transfer documents for transferring the vehicle in the name of the Opposite Party company alongwith keys of the vehicle and all other documents and indemnity bond without any delay.  The insurance company vide letter dated 14.8.2014 asked the Regional Transport Authority, Chandigarh to transfer the vehicle in question in the name of the Opposite Party. It is alleged that despite completing all the formalities, the Opposite Party vide Anenxure C-8 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2. Opposite Party has filed reply and stated that the  vehicle in question was registered in the name of the complainant but since he does have valid licence to ply the same he hired a dirver named Salim on daily wages.  The said driver further asked another driver named Ranjit to drive the vehicle on 3.12.2013, who parked the said vehicle in question near shop NO.1 industrial area phase 1 Panchkula at about 10.00 pm. and handed over the original papers alongwith ignition key to one person named  Ashok Kumar who was under the influence of alcohol.  Hence the vehicle was stolen due to negligent act of the complainant. Even the driver hired by the complainant left the job and his whereabouts is not known.

     It is averred that the Opposite Party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as there was violation of ‘condition NO.4’ of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy according to which the insured was liable to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party made in the reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties, and have also perused the record.

 

6.     It is settled matter that the complainant purchased a second hand vehicle make tata ACE BS III (loader) having chassis No. MAT4450519VG22216 and registration No.CH04-K-1985. As per rules the insurance cover as well as the registration certificate of the said vehicle was got transferred in the name of the complainant.  The said vehicle was got stolen by some unknown person. An FIR (Annexure C-4) in this regard was lodged by the complainant. Accordingly theft claim was also lodged with the Opposite Party. As is evident from Annexure C-5 at page 19 of the paper book an Un-trace report on the basis of investigation conducted by the police was made and the same was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to the illaqua Magistrate for its approval, which was accordingly accepted on 3.6.2014
   (Annexure C-5) at page 18. After submitting the un-trace report the complainant also submitted the letter of subrogation in favour of the insurance company (OP) who after getting completed all the formalities, applied vide letter dated 14.8.2014 to the Regional Transport Authority, Chandigarh to transfer the vehicle in question in the name of the Opposite Party i.e. Insurance Company. Vide said letter the Opposite Party admitted the genuineness of the theft claim lodged by the complainant. The contents of the same are reproduced for further clarification:-

“We intend to settle theft claim of above noted vehicle on total loss basis under Motor Insurance Policy No.1102003113P104399991 effective from 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2014 as theft of vehicle has been genuinely established through police FIR No. 163 dated 6.12.2013 followed by Un-trace report dated 20.5.2014 and CJM Court orders dated 3.6.2014. The settlement of claim needs that RC of the vehicle to be transferred in the name of our company.

Sir, as such, please arrange to transfer registration certificate of the said vehicle in the name of our company i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., at the earliest.”

 

7.     However, from the written statement of the Opposite Party it transpires that the Opposite Party appointed an investigator to investigate the truth about the theft claim lodged by the complainant. Record reveals that before submission of the investigator report the Opposite Party completed all the formalities to allow the claim. Surprisingly the Opposite Party after applying to Regional Transport Authority to transfer the said vehicle in its name arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.9.2014.  claiming that its investigating officer during the investigation has recorded the statements of the complainant and one Mr. Ashok kumar to whom the driver of the complainant handed over the keys and documents of the vehicle in question.  The said driver was appointed by the complainant for driving purpose as he himself was not holding proper driving licence. The Opposite Party claimed that the vehicle was got stolen due to negligent act of the driver of the complainant who gave the keys and documents to third person from whose possession it was stolen and thus it rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

    After repudiation of the claim the complainant came to know that the same has been done on the basis of his statement and statement of Ashok Kumar from whose custody the vehicle was stolen. The complainant in his rejoinder as well during the arguments submitted that he is illiterate person and his signatures were obtained on the blank paper by the investigator and similarly that of the other witness i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar. The complainant in order to fortify his assertion appended the affidavit of Ashok Kumar who supported his version that his signatures were obtained on blank paper by the investigator.

 

8.     On thorough consideration of the submissions made by the parties, and also thorough perusal of the record evidence produced by both parties, it is hard to swallow that on the one hand the police has given untrace report by investigating the case, which was forwarded to the Illqua Magistrate through the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which was accepted and order was passed and also requisite documents were submitted by the complainant with the Opposite Party and  Opposite Party got signed transfer documents and further wrote to the Regional Transport Authority to transfer the vehicle in favour of the Opposite Party and on the other hand surprisingly Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant taking recourse to the report of the investigator based on the statements made by the complainant and one  Ashok Kumar obtained on 19.8.2014 i.e. much after it (OP) applied for transfer of the vehicle in its name i.e. on 14.8.2014. This gesture of Opposite Party categorically defines the malafide of the Opposite Party.

         It is strange that the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the basis of the report of the investigator but badly failed to produce it on record or any affidavit of the investigator in this regard. The  Opposite Party solely repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of his and one Ashok Kumar’s statement, which too have been denied by them through their sworn affidavits.

9.     Under these circumstances, we find that the Opposite Party wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and rendered deficient service towards complainant having indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.    

        

10.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against Opposite Party for the deficient service.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed as under:-

        

a]  To pay the theft claim of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @ @9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim till it is paid.   

 

b]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant on account of deficient service and having indulged into unfair trade practice.

C]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 45 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (b) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

13.1.2016

                                                                             Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER