Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/140

M/s Khalsa Tubewell Trading Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A.N.Juneja Adv.

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 140 dated 08.03.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 01.12.2022.

 

1. M/s. Khalsa Tubewell Trading Company, Near Rajput Bhawan, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, through its Partners Yadwinder Singh and Lakhmir Singh.
2. Yadwinder Singh son of S. Pritam Singh, Partner , M/s. Khalsa Tubewell Trading Company, Near Rajput Bhawan, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana.
3. Lakhmir Singh son of S Gurcharan Singh, Partner, M/s. Khalsa Tubewell Trading Company, Near Rajput Bhawan, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana                                                                                        ..…Complainant 
4.  

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Motor Services Hub, Surya Tower, 108, The Mall, Ludhiana, through its Manager. …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. A.N. Juneja, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the facts stated in the complaint are that complainant No.1 is a partnership form (Ex. C1) and complainant No.2 and 3 are its partners who are incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of complainant No.1 firm. The complainant firm was the owner of vehicle Mahindra Pick-up model 2005 colour White bearing registration No.PB-10BL-9952 which was got insured with the opposite party vide policy No.2009003116N100090040 valid from 21.04.2016 to 20.04.2017. On 14.07.2017 at about 09.00PM the said vehicle was parked on the road side in front of the shop of the complainants and on the following date i.e. 15.04.2017 at about 09.00 AM, it was found to be stolen. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police at helpline No.100 and a DDR No.18 dated 23.04.2017 (Ex. C3) at Police Post Miller Ganj, P.S. Division No.2 was recorded. The said DDR was investigated along with FIR No.86 dated 11.04.2017 (Ex. C2). The matter was intimated to the opposite party on 15.04.017 and necessary formalities were completed but even after the elapse of considerable time, the opposite party did not make any payment. Instead vide letter No.MT/GPS/2018/930 dated 19.07.2018 was closed the claim of the complainants. The complainants have further alleged that by closing the claim, the opposite party has caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainants prayed for making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.75,000/- for causing physical and mental pain, agony, harassment etc. Besides this the complainants have claimed Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written statement and took preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, competency and authorization of the complainant. Besides this, specific objection was taken that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by its own act and conduct. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has not lodged the FIR immediately with the police. On the receipt of information, the opposite party deputed M/s. Royal Associates as instigator who submitted the report on 07.08.2017 (Ex. R6). Thereafter, the complainant was called upon to submit the documents comprising of:-

1. Untraceable certificate from the concerned police authority

2. NCRB report

3. Duplicate R/C and duplicate vehicle key

4. Form 29 and 30

Reminders dated 23.04.2018 (Ex. R35), 14.06.2018 (Ex. R36) and 22.06.2018 (Ex. R37) were issued to the complainant but the complainant did not submit the requisite documents. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.07.2018 (Ex. R38) the complainant was intimated that the claim file has been closed on 26.06.2018 due to no response from the side of the complainant after so many reminders and also missing/damage of both keys of the vehicle. The opposite party has also denied the allegations of the complaint being wrong and incorrect. The opposite party has further asserted that there is no deficiency of unfair trade practice on its part. Prayer of the complaint has also been denied and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                In support of their claim, the complainants tendered affidavit of Sh. Yadwinder Singh, Partner of complainant No.1 firm Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainants also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C17 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manmohan Singh, Assistant Manager of the opposite party along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R46 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, written statement, affidavits and annexed documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                The counsel for the complainants has contended that the complainants have supplied all the documents and there is a delay on the part of the opposite party to settle the claim particularly when the fact of theft of the insured vehicle was found to be genuine and mere non submission of certain documents which are beyond control of the complainant cannot be made a ground for closing of the claim file.  

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party while contending has drawn attention of this Commission that the emails/letters are Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 issued by the investigator to the complainants asking them to produce the documents but they did not submit the same to the investigator. Even after the submission of the report of the investigator, the opposite party continued to demand the documents from the complainants vide reminders Ex. R34 to Ex. R37 but nothing was done on the part of the complainants. Thereafter, the opposite party was constrained to close the claim file of the complainants and as such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  

8.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record minutely.

9.                Perusal of letters issued by the opposite party to the complainants before and after report of investigator clearly shows that the opposite party had been pressing the complainant to submit the following documents.

1. Untraceable certificate from the concerned police authority

2. NCRB report

3. Duplicate R/C and duplicate vehicle key

4. Form 29 and 30

While submitting he report Ex. R6, the investigator has concluded that the date, time and place of theft seems to be genuine. The insured was using the pick up for own business and one duplicate key, RC and insurance policy were lying with the insured and both the original keys were broken due to wear and tear. The untrace report is still awaited and the claim of the insurer may be dealt with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the given set of circumstances, it was the duty of the opposite party to assess the loss even when the documents were submitted to them. The delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the documents cannot be made a sole ground to close the claim of the complainant. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical.

10.              In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainants to submit all the necessary documents with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party shall consider to reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                                      Member                            President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

M/s. Khalsa Tubewell Trading Co. Vs United India Ins. Co.    CC/19/140 

Present:       Sh. A.N. Juneja, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainants to submit all the necessary documents with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party shall consider to reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                                      Member                            President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.