Haryana

Karnal

CC/258/2022

Lakhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.258 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.02.05.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 30.08.2024

 

Lakhwinder Singh son of Shri Jagir Singh, resident of village Lalyani, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. Aadhar no.3240 0759 5808.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Durga Bhawani Temple, Old G.T. Road, near Bus Stand, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri S.S. Moonak, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri R.K. Singhal, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle i.e. TATA 3118 (12 tyres) Truck bearing registration no.HR-46C-4064.  The said truck was insured with the OP, vide policy no.1107003120P112242625, valid from 24.01.2021 to 23.01.2022. The policy was package/comprehensive. The IDV of the truck was Rs.8,38,350/-. The extra premium has been paid for covering “Tyres” for Rs.2,00,000/-. On 19.03.2021, the said truck was parked near Panchyat Ghar, Lalyani, District Karnal after locking the same. In the midnight, the son of complainant, namely Harjit went to the spot at 1.00 a.m., in order to check the truck. On the next day, on 20.03.2021 at about 10.00 a.m., when complainant went to the spot where the truck was parked, he was shocked to see the truck was not there. Some unknown person has stolen the vehicle in the night. The complainant approached the local police and got registered an FIR no.0115 dated 20.03.2021 under section 379 IPC with Police Station Taraori, District Karnal. The complainant immediately informed the OP regarding the theft of the vehicle, the officials of the OP visited the spot and enquired about the theft. The complainant submitted the claim form and all other relevant documents in the office of OP. The complainant also submitted the untrace report of the vehicle with the OP but despite nothing was done. After waiting sufficient time, complainant approached the OP several times and requested to settle the claim but OP did not give any satisfactory reply. Ultimately, the letter dated 11.04.2022 was received by the complainant in which the case was closed as “No Claim”. The closing of the aforesaid claim on the part of the OP, is totally null and void and the same is against the principal of natural justice. It is further averred that OP had obtained the signatures of the complainant’s driver and son of the complainant on some blank papers. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the truck in question was alleged to be stolen on 20.03.2021 and the complainant had lodged the claim with the OP but the complainant had failed to submit the necessary documents and to reply the queries despite repeated reminders dated 07.12.2021, 10.01.2022, 03.02.2022, 07.03.2022 and 11.04.2022. It is further pleaded that intimation regarding the theft of the truck in question was received but the complainant had failed to submit the final untrace report duly issued by the court despite repeated reminders. The complainant had also failed to complete the necessary formalities and to submit the necessary documents and as such, the claim is not payable at all. The complainant falsely alleged that he had submitted all the documents whereas, the complainant had himself failed to reply the queries raised by the OP and to submit the documents and thus there the OP had no other alternate except to close the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” and the necessary intimation was given to the complainant through registered letter. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of final report Ex.C3, copy of Adampata Report Ex.C4, copy of closure letter dated 11.04.2022 Ex.C5, copy of driving licence of Karnail Singh Ex.C6, copy of tax receipt Ex.C7, copy of Authorization Certificate Ex.C8, copy of National Permit Ex.C9, copy of National Permit Part-A Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 13.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered form no.35 Ex.C11, copy of NOC Ex.C12, copy of vehicle enquiry report Ex.C13 and closed the additional evidence on 23.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaswant Rai Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Baldev Singh Investigator Ex.RW2/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 07.12.2021 Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 10.1.2022 Ex.R3, copies of postal receipts Ex.R4 and Ex.R5, copy of letter dated 03.02.2022 Ex.R6, postal receipt Ex.R7, copy of letter dated 07.03.2022 Ex.R8, postal receipt Ex.R9, copy of letter dated 11.04.2022 Ex.R10, postal receipts ExR12 to Ex.R14, copy of letter dated 05.04.2022 Ex.R15, copy of statement of Karnail Singh Ex.R16, copy of investigation report dated 15.02.2022 Ex.R17, copy of statement of Lakhwinder Singh Ex.R18 and closed the evidence on 29.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that during the subsistence of insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen. Intimation was given to police as well as to the OP. FIR no.0115 dated 20.03.2021 was registered with the Police Station, Taraori, Karnal. Complainant submitted the claim with the OP and completed all the required formalities for settlement of the claim but OP did not pay the claim amount and closed the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 11.04.2022 on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for complainant relied upon the case law titled as M/s Delkon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.  III(1993) CPJ 313 (NC); Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II(2010) CPJ 9 (SC); National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal IV(2008) CPJ 1(SC) and National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Vs. Roshni Devi and others in first appeal from order no.3276 of 2001(O&M) of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the present complaint is pre-mature, as till date complainant has not provided the required documents despite repeated reminders, hence the claim of complainant was rightly closed by the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.8,38,350/-. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question could not be recovered and police submitted untrace report before the Illaqua Magistrate, Karnal.

12.           The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP, vide closure letter Ex.C5/Ex.R11 dated 11.04.2022 on the following grounds, which are reproduced as under:-

“On scrutiny of the above claim file, we note the following   observations.

1. Please submit final untraceable report duly issued from concerned CJM court.
2. As per FIR lodged by you we note that you have parked the vehicle as per your routine main road, near Panchyat Ghar, village Lalyani, Taraori, District Karnal. Please submit us copy of driving license of Shri Harjeet Singh son of Shri Lakhwinder Singh, as per your statement given on 07.02.2022.
3. Submit us both ignition keys.
4. Please submit us non-possession certificate from financer i.e. India Infoline Finance Ltd.Karnal.
5. In claim form and your statement on 05.07.2021 Shri Karnal Singh son of Shri Sucha Singh was driving your vehicle but in your statement on 07.02.2022 the driver was Shri Harjeet Singh son of Shri Lakhwinder Singh. Your statement is contradictory and not satisfactory. Please clarify.

You have not submitted the above documents despite of our repeated reminders sent to you. Hence, we have closed your claim file as ‘No Claim’. This is for your information please.”

13.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the aforesaid grounds. Complainant submitted that he has submitted the requisite documents with the OP. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. To prove his case, complainant has tendered copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of final report Ex.C3, copy of Adampata (untrace) Report Ex.C4, copy of closure letter dated 11.04.2022 Ex.C5, copy of driving licence of Karnail Singh Ex.C6, copy of tax receipt Ex.C7, copy of Authorization Certificate Ex.C8, copy of National Permit Ex.C9, copy of National Permit Part-A Ex.C10, form no.35 Ex.C11, copy of letter dated 05.04.2023 Ex.C12 regarding issuing of NOC by financer and copy of vehicle enquiry report Ex.C13 regarding non-recovery of vehicle. When the complainant has placed on file, the copies of aforesaid documents as to why he would have not supplied these documents to the OP except the non-possession certificate. Ex.C12 (NOC), which was obtained by the complainant on 05.04.2023 from the financer. Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such amount why he will not supply the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigations. Hence, we found no substance in the contentions of OP.

14.           OP has further alleged that both ignition keys have not been provided by the complainant. As per letter Ex.R17 dated 15.02.2022 written by Karnal Associates, Investigating and Detective Agency to the Divisional Incharge, United India Insurance Co. (OP) that complainant was having two keys of ignition and two keys of door. In the said letter, investigator has also attached the photocopies of the keys. Meaning, thereby, complainant has handover keys to the OP. Hence, it appears that the claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP on the basis of presumption and assumption, which is not admissible in the eyes of law. Thus, the plea taken by the OP has no force.

15.           Furthermore, now a days it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and while giving claim amount, they make such type of excuses. Thus, the repudiation of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we relied upon the case law of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

16.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

17.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2/Ex.R1, the insured declared value of the vehicle in question is Rs.8,38,350/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 18.          In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.8,38,350/- (Rs. eight lakhs thirty eight thousand three fifty only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 02.05.2022 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to complete all the formalities with regard to transfer/cancel of the RC of the vehicle in question. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 30.08.2024   

                                                              President,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                        (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                            Member