Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 368.
Instituted on : 30.7.2019.
Decided on : 05.07.2022.
Satpal Kadian son of Sh. Dharambir, resident of House no.85/5, Sarai Rohilla, East Moti Bag, New Delhi at present village Dubaldhan Majra, Distt. Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office 323/18, Ist Floor, Ambedkar Chowk, near Adarsh Cinema, Hansi Service be effected through its Divisional Manager, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Jaipal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri D.N. Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of Car bearing registration no.DL-8CDG-9999, which was got insured with United Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no.1104083117P103527029 for the period 5.6.2017 to 4.6.2018 and IDV value of the vehicle is Rs.8,50,000/-. On dated 27.5.2018 the vehicle in question was stolen and the complainant tried his best to trace out the vehicle in question but could not find out. In this regard, he immediately informed to the Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak in writing on 27.5.2018 regarding the theft of said vehicle and police also could not find out the said vehicle. An FIR no.240 dated 29.5.2018 under Section 379 of IPC, Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak was registered. The complainant also intimated to the officials of respondent within time verbally as well as in writing and lodged his claim alongwith all required documents and the respondent lodged the claim vide claim no.1104083118C050073001. The complainant submitted all the documents, completed the formalities and submitted the untraced report issued by the Court of ld. ACJM, Rohtak, as required by the official of the respondent for disbursement of the genuine claim amount. But the respondent could not disburse the claim amount and has repudiated the same vide its letter dated 18.1.2019 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 22.4.2019 vide registered post through his counsel Sh. Virender Singh but all in vain. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount i.e. IDV value of vehicle Rs.8,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from its accrual till actual realization and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that the complainant had claimed NCB of 25% while seeking the insurance policy renewed as if it was a usual insurance renewal in continuity of his previous policy and have signed a specific proposal form to that effect as per his undertaking. On the contrary he ought to have disclosed that he has brought the vehicle as 2nd hand. As a matter of fact he should have got the policy transferred soon after transfer of RC in his name by depositing necessary fee & recovery of NCB earlier during previous policy period itself but he completed 12 months of previous policy to earn the NCB which would have gone zero in midterm transfer. Hence it is quite a planned action to save premium unethically and by adopting wrong means. It is also submitted that complainant has not submitted the documents which are mandatory requirements i.e. Original FIR, Original Police Final Report, Return of Original Policy, Return of both the Car ignition keys, transfer of RC documents i.e. Form no.28, 29, 30, Original RC, 2Nos ID of vehicle owner, letter of undertaking/indemnity on Rs.200/- stamp paper duly notarized, letter of subrogation on Rs.200/- stamp paper duly notarized but the complainant not complied the same. Therefore, the primary pre-requisite documents remaining pending with the complainant himself so far & on the basis of incomplete requirements the insurance company could not have approved the claim. Hence, there is no deficiency in service in the par of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.11.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and has closed his evidence on dated 8.1.2021. In additional evidence, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/B to Ex.RW1/D and documents Ex.R12 to Ex.R13 and has closed his additional evidence on dated 24.8.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by the opposite party as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. At the time of arguments ld. counsel for the insurance company has contended that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The counsel has submitted that the complainant is resident of Delhi and policy has been issued from Hansi/Hissar so this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further contended that the policy has been obtained by the complainant after making a conspiracy with the insurance company and complainant has misrepresented the facts regarding the cost and particulars of the policy. He further submitted that the complainant has not disclosed the actual cost of the vehicle before the insurance company. In fact value of the vehicle has been assessed on higher side and it has been argued that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant approximately for an amount of Rs.450000/-. He further submitted that a false information has been submitted with the insurance company in the form of proposal which is placed on record by the respondents Ex.R2. Complainant has wrongly claimed No Claim Bonus of 25%. Respondent company has placed on record 3 affidavits one of DM, second of investigator Manoj Agnihotri and 3rd of Sh. Jugal Kishore Duneja. It was also submitted by the counsel that RC has been transferred in the name of complainant but the previous insurance issued by the HDFC has not been got transferred by the complainant in his name.
6. We have minutely perused all the documents placed on record by both the parties. Regarding the territorial jurisdiction, it is observed that in fact the incident took place in Rohtak and hence this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The repudiation letter was issued on dated 18.01.2019. In this letter company has only one objection which is for ‘no claim bonus’. In the present case the previous owner of the vehicle was Ms. Radhika Kabra. The previous policy issued by HDFC Gen. Insurance Company in the name of Ms. Radhika Kabra for one year i.e. from 05.06.2016 to 04.06.2017 and thereafter the vehicle has been sold to the complainant. Here it is prime duty of the insurance company i.e. UIIC when they issued the insurance cover to the vehicle in question they should verify all the previous insurance particulars from the complainant. In fact the mail has been sent to HDFC Gen. Insurance Co. by the respondent and the HDFC Gen. Ins. Co. has confirmed that no claim has been obtained by the previous owner upon the previous policy. The HDFC Gen. Ins. Co. gave 20% NCB to Radhika Kabra. In fact correct particulars have been supplied by the complainant to the insurance company and nothing has been concealed by him. It is observed that no claim letter has been issued on 18.01.2019 and thereafter further investigation has been conducted in the year 2021 without reopening the claim file of complainant, which shows that the intention of insurance company is malafide. This type of activity of the insurance company impose unnecessary financial loss to the insurance company. Regarding the cost of the vehicle, an investigation report has been placed on record by the insurance company as Ex.R12. This investigation has been conducted by Manoj Kumar Agnihotri Investigator and he submitted his report with the insurance company on 04.03.2021. As per vehicle history report submitted by the investigator, it is itself proved that Ms.Radhika Kabra was previous owner of the vehicle. Moreover regarding the cost of vehicle, an another affidavit has been placed on record as Ex.RW1/C by Sh. Jugal Kishore Duneja IRDA approved & duly licensed independent surveyor. As per this report the investigator perused the documents of the vehicle and assessed the cost of the vehicle as Rs.375000/-(+/-5%) as on 03.03.2021. In fact the vehicle has been insured by the respondent officials for the period of one year i.e. w.e.f 05.06.2017 to 04.06.2018 and as per the complainant the cost of vehicle was Rs.850000/- on dated 05.06.2017. The respondent failed to place on record any authentic document to prove the fact that on dated 05.06.2017 the value of the vehicle of the complainant was Rs.450000/-. In the present case, the theft had taken place on 27.05.2018 and FIR was got registered on 29.05.2018. Perusal of document Ex.R4 and Ex.C15 itself shows that information regarding the theft of the vehicle has been given to the police Control Room on Number 100 on 27.05.2018 at 9.00A.M. Hence immediate information was given to the police and there is no delay on the part of complainant and it is the prime duty of the police to register the FIR. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is on false grounds and the opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.850000/-(Rupees eight lac fifty thousand only) alonwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten 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 e.g. letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C., signed form no.29-30, submit indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 05.07.2022 of this Commission.
8. 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:
05.07.2022
...................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………
Shyam Lal, Member
