Punjab

Sangrur

CC/632/2017

Mangal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Lovepreet Walia

20 Apr 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    632

                                                Instituted on:      27.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       20.04.2018

 

Mangal Singh son of Sheetal Singh, resident of Farid Nagar, Street No.2, Near CL Tower, Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Above Aggarwal Auto, Dirba, Tehsil Dirba, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Railway Station Road, Sangrur, through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Lovepreet Walia, Adv.

For Opp.parties          :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Mangal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing number PB-13-AD-2845 for Rs.45,000/- vide insurance policy number 1117843115P103584155 for the period from 27.6.2015 to 26.6.2016  by paying the requisite premium.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen on 5.9.2015 when it was parked outside the Mandir Kali Devi, Sangrur, where about 70/80 vehicles were standing/parked.  When the complainant came out from the mandir, then he found that his motorcycle is missing and he tried to find out the same, as such, after that the complainant immediately gave intimation to the SHO PS City Sangrur in writing and also gave intimation to the OP number 2 at their Sangrur office on 6.9.2015. It is further averred that the complainant requested the employee of the OP number 2 for supply of the duplicate copy of the information, but the same was not supplied.  Thereafter OP number 2 appointed surveyor, who visited the house of the complainant and took the signatures of the complainant on various documents. Thereafter on the advice of the surveyor, the complainant applied to get the duplicate copy of the RC.  It is further stated that at last, the police lodged FIR number 270 dated 23.9.2015 against his application dated 6.9.2015.  Further case of the complainant is that the police of PS City Sangrur thoroughly investigated the matter and lastly filed untraced report before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 10.09.2016, but the claim of the complainant was not settled despite issuance of legal notice dated 17.10.2017 to the OP number 2.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.35,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs under the policy in question. It is further denied that the vehicle in question was stolen on 5.9.2015 at Kali Mata Mandir, Sangrur.  The case of the OPs is that the insured intimated the OPs about the loss of the motorcycle on 29.10.2015 i.e. after a gap of 55 days though the vehicle was stolen on 5.9.2015 and FIR was also lodged after a period of 19 days of theft.  Thereafter the OPs appointed Shri Manjit Singh Kohli, surveyor and investigator to investigate the matter, who intimated the OPs on 6.11.2015 and stated it is wrong that the complainant approached the police on 6.9.2015. The case of the OPs is that the complainant was bound to give written information immediately after the occurrence of the theft of the motorcycle.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OPs for Rs.35,000/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy which is on record as Ex.OP-1 and it further reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1057/- as premium.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 05.09.2015 when it was parked outside the Kali Devi Mandir, Sangrur, of which FIR number 270 dated 23.9.2015 was recorded in PS City Sangrur, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4.  However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the late submission of the intimation about theft of the vehicle to the OPs and late intimation of loss of vehicle to the police.

 

6.             Ex.C-3 is the copy of insurance policy, whereas  Ex.C-4 is the copy of FIR lodged with the police of P.S. City Sangrur regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. In the present case, the cause of refusal for settlement of the claim is only late intimate to the police as well as to the OPs, whereas the case of the complainant is that he intimated the OPs  as well as the police immediately about the loss of the vehicle in question. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that since the complainant was finding the vehicle here and there, and when he did not find the same, he lodged the FIR with the police.  Now, the question for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount or not.  It is on the record that the complainant tried his best to find out the vehicle here and there and intimated the OPs immediately as well as to the police on 6.9.2015, a copy of letter on record is Ex.C-5.  Whereas the learned counsel for the OPs has stated that the complainant intimated it only on 29.10.2015 after a gap of 55 days though the vehicle was reported stolen on 5.9.2015, but no such document is on record that the OPs was intimated on 29.10.2015, whereas the FIR was lodged on 23.9.2015. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had to intimate the police and it is the police only who had to lodge the FIR at their own and in this respect, the complainant is unable to take any action to lodge the FIR.  To support the contention that the complainant immediately intimated the OPs, the complainant has produced on record a copy of the application dated 6.9.2015 submitted to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Sangrur, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the vehicle in question was stolen on 5.9.2015 when it was parked at the outside of Mahakali Mandir, Sangrur.     The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 (HR), wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bona fide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sukhram Kashyap versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA/13/272, decided on 11.4.2013 by the Chhattisgarh State Commission, wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) has been relied upon, wherein it has been held that the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of policy, the appellant Insurance company ought to have settled the claim on ‘non standard basis”.   Further we find that the OPs are also deficient in rendering service by not considering the merits of the claim and in repudiating the whole claim of the complainant. To support such a contention further, reliance can also be placed on The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Ashish Kumar Chauhan, Appeal No.FA/12/110, instituted on 29.2.2012, decided on 19.7.2012 by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, wherein in similar circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble State Commission ordered the insurance company to pay 75% of the claim amount.   The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited the decision pronounced by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.16701 of 2013 decided on 26.11.2013 in case titled The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus M/s. Viceroy Car Rental Private Limited and another, wherein it has been held that since the claim of the complainant was found to be justified and the vehicle was admittedly insured with the petitioner-company, which was stolen and the incident of theft was immediately reported to the police, as noticed hereinabove. It has never been the case of the insurance company that the claim of the respondent was either bogus or fraudulent. Only objection raised was that the claim was lodged after three months and 9 days and not within the stipulated period of 48 hours, as such, it was held that the delay was not fatal in the circumstances of the case, still further 15% deduction from the total amount of compensation was rightly ordered by Permanent Lok Adalat and that was only because of delayed claim.   No law to the contrary has been cited.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice would be met  if the claim of the complainant is settled on non standard basis. Admittedly, in the present case the vehicle in question is insured for Rs.35,000/-, as such, we feel that if calculated 75% of the amount, it comes to Rs.26,250/-. We further are of view that the complainant is liable to supply to the OPs the duplicate registration certificate of the vehicle in question, letter of subrogation, indemnity bond as well as special power of attorney.

                                

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.26,250/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.11.2017 till realisation subject to supply of the duplicate registration certificate, letter of subrogation, indemnity bond as well as special power of attorney by the complainant to the OPs.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        April 20, 2018.

                                                                                               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                          Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member