View 20824 Cases Against United India Insurance
ShriGurcharan Singh filed a consumer case on 17 Oct 2022 against United India Insurance Com in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is RBT/CC/18/199 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Nov 2022.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.199 of 2018
Date of institution:22.03.2018
Date of Decision:17.10.2022
Gurcharan Singh son of Sh. Piara Singh, resident of House No.559/702, Raj Transport Building, Gill Road, Ludhiana
…….Complainant
Versus
…..Opposite Parties
QUORUM:
HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
PRESENT:
Sh. Yogesh Gandhi, Adv. for complainant
Sh. MR Saluja, Adv. for OPs
ORDER
RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
“In view of above investigation/documents/findings/FIR/FR we conclude that theft of truck in question appears to be genuine”.
Copy of the investigation report has been supplied by the OP to the complainant under RTI Act vide their letter dated 20.12.2017. The perusal of the investigation report clearly depicts that the said investigator had confirmed the theft of the truck in question. The said investigator in his report dated 7.3.2017 confirmed the intimation of the theft at Police Control Room on 100 number on 25.9.2017 at 00.30 hrs by Sardara Singh through his mobile, NCRB report dated 14.2.2017 confirming that the truck in question has not been recovered, police final non traceable report No.06/16 dated 2.11.2016, lodging of FIR No.0485 dated 27.09.2016 with PS Transport Nagar, Meerut under Section 379 IPC and that both the keys of truck in question are with the insured. The police authorities of PS Transport Nagar, Meerut has made thorough investigation but could not trace the missing truck in question owned by the complainant and as such presented the cancellation report was accepted by the court of ACJM-8, Meerut under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 24.3.2017, order of the court dated 24.3.2017 passed in case titled State Vs Unknown in FIR No.0485 PS Transport Nagar, Meerut. The complainant has completed all the formalities and supplied all the documents and information sought by the investigator and the OP, from time to time with the assurance that the claim will be settled at the earliest. It is further alleged that as per the copy of claim file supplied by the complainant vide letter bearing No.LDRO;RTI;2017-18 dated 20.12.2017 under RTI Act, Shri Parveen Kumar Goyal was appointed to assess the value of the truck in question insured vide policy bearing No.2013823115P107701995 valid from 25.09.2015 to 24.09.2016 with the IDV Value of Rs.6,50,000/- (policy renewed vide policy No.2013823116P108269846 valid from 25.9.2016 to 24.9.2017 for IDV Value of Rs.6,25,000/-) Shri Parveen Kumar Goyal has submitted his report dated 8.5.2017 with his observation that the fair market value of the truck prior to the loss on 24.9.2016 at 11.30 pm was Rs.5,75,000/- whereas the IDV at the time of loss was Rs.6,50,000/-. The report of Parveen Kumar Goyal dated 8.5.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and against all cannons of justice and equity since the same has been made without the verification of the truck after its theft on 24.09.2016 at about 11.30 pm as admitted by the said surveyor. Moreover, it is well settled law that in case of theft IDV Value at the time of the loss is to be paid which as per the insurance policy and as confirmed by Parveen Kumar Goyal, as such, assessing the fair market value of the truck is inadmissible and cannot relied. After the receipt of the report of the investigator, M/s Hi Tech Investigators dated 7.3.2017 and Parveen Kumar Goyal dated 8.5.2017 and after scrutinizing the documents detailed in the list of documents from Sr. No.1to 55 as per the copy of the list of the documents supplied under RTI Act and after due application of mind by officials of the OP No.1 the claim file of the complainant was approved for payment of Rs.5,75,000/- on the basis of survey report of Parveen Kumar Goyal against the IDV Value of Rs.6,50,000/- as per the office note duly signed by Shri Avtar Saroye, Asstt. Manager and Shri Rakesh Sharma, Divisional Manager, confirming the theft of the truck and that there is no violation of any terms and conditions of the policy since all the claim papers are in order by considering that the claim should be treated in the renewed policy otherwise the insured may claim for the refund of premium of Rs.32,511/-. Even the consent for Rs.5,75,000/- has been taken from the complainant against the theft claim of truck in question with the refund of Rs.32,511/- being the refund of premium of policy as the truck in question was stolen on 24.9.2016 along with letter of undertaking, letter of indemnify, letter of subrogation, documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership of the truck i.e. No.29 form No.30, affidavit, self declaration. Copy of the office note, list of documents in the file of theft of truck in question and copy of consent form, letter of undertaking, letter of indemnity, letter of subrogation, documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership of the truck in question for the kind perusal of this Court. There is no provision for supply of the keys of the vehicle to the OP under the policy obtained by the complainant. It is well settled law laid down by the appellate authorities constituted under Consumer Protection Act that the terms and conditions of the policy are not generated in case of theft of parked vehicle duly locked. When the theft of the vehicle is admitted by the OPs and confirmed by the investigator to be genuine and the claim has been approved and recommended for payment after due application of mind by the senior officer of the OP company in the rank Divisional Manager, then thereafter there is no question of calling upon the complainant to supply the keys of the vehicle. The OP illegally, arbitrarily and against the terms and condition of the policy with malafide intentions has called upon the complainant to supply the keys of the parked vehicle stolen. The complainant has supplied the keys of the vehicle to the OP. The complainant was surprised to receive the letter dated 7.8.2017 after the approval of the claim on 30.05.2017 calling upon the complainant to show cause that the keys are not original as both the keys differ in structure and appearance. The complainant send the reply to the letter dated 7.8.2017 by virtue of duly sworn affidavit under his signatures and duly attested by the Notary Public Ludhiana dated 31.08.2017 clearly stating that he has submitted the original keys and the said keys were never replaced/lost from the date of registration till the date of theft. The said affidavit that out of two keys one of the key was used regularly and as such it was repaired as broken from knobs and the second key is intact as supplied by the manufacturer. Inspite of the well reasoned reply dated 31.8.2017 the complainant was surprised to receive the letter dated nil whereby the OP had illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant as no claim on flimsy grounds, illegally, arbitrarily and against all cannons of justice e and equity against the terms and conditions of the policy which were never supplied and the law laid down by the appellate authorities under the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that the complainant has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and thereby violating condition No.5, on the ground that the keys were not original which amounts to violation of policy terms and condition No.5 & 6 ownership of the vehicle is doubtful. After the receipt of said letter dated nil the complainant had called upon the OP that they are liable to settle the claim as there is no alleged condition No.5 & 6 in the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance supplied to the complainant, there is no delay in lodging FIR, ownership is not doubtful and the keys submitted were original and were never replaced till the date of theft. Hence, this complaint. Vide this instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following relief:-
1.To pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and refund Rs.32,510/- being the amount of premium received by the OP while insuring vide policy valid from 25.9.2016 to 24.9.2017 after the theft of the truck, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of lodging the claim and payment of premium till its payment.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, negligence and mal trade practices adopted on account of which the complainant has suffered mental tension, torture agony and financial loss.
3. To pay Rs.33000/- as litigation charges.
The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.
The complainant is not entitled to any claim because he has also contravened the term No.6 of the policy in question because the complainant has misrepresentation and is also guilty of submission of wrong material facts by supplying duplicate keys of the truck alleged to be stolen. In order to know the original or duplicate keys, the OPs got verified from SIFS, Forensic Science Laboratory, India, Jalandhar and Jahangir Nanda, Forensic Expert of SIFS India vide his report dated 10.11.2017 confirmed and concluded that the keys submitted by complainant of truck in question of make/model Tata 2515 are not the genuine but duplicate. The keys supplied by the complainant are different in shape and size and both the keys are not genuine and does not belong to company Tata but the same are locally made. The said forensic report contain 10 points on which the said forensic expert of the said laboratory has confirmed and concluded and that the keys supplied by the complainant was not original keys of Tata Company. Therefore, the duplicate keys representing to be original keys amounts to misrepresenting and guilty is guilty of making false representation and guilty of concealing true facts and thus is not entitled to any claim as he as made false representation. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
October 17, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
President
(Ranvir Kaur)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.