Haryana

Karnal

CC/27/2022

Munish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gopal Singh Chauhan

20 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 27 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.17.01.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:20.03.2024

 

Munish Kumar aged about 32 years son of Shri Gulab Singh, resident of Village Gonder, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. Aadhar No.8172 1004 0841.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Situated at Mansa Mata Devi Complex, Hetu Wali Trust, Old G.T. Road, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before     Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

                Shri Vineet Kaushik…..Member

        Dr. Suman Singh……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Gopal Singh Chauhan, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Ashok Vohra, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is owner of a truck make TATA bearing registration No.HR64-5671 model 2011 and the same was insured with the OP. On 04.06.2020 at about 11:30 PM, driver of complainant namely Kulvinder Singh, has gone to Yamuna Nagar from Nissing for loading concrete in the vehicle and at about 01:30 PM when the driver of complainant reached at Kamboj Dhaba Village Santri for taking tea and for rest. At about 05:00 AM, when the driver of complainant wake upt then he found that the said vehicle was not there. The driver informed the said incident to the complainant. Thereafter, they searched his vehicle but all in vain. Immediately after the incident, complainant reported the matter to police of Police Station Indri and got lodged FIR No.197 dated 06.06.2020, under Section 379 of IPC. The intimation was also given to OP. A surveyor was appointed but despite repeated requests, the claim of the complainant has not been passed. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, suppression of true and material facts, locus standi, cause of action jurisdiction and estoppel. On merits, it is pleaded that claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered on merits and the same not found payable due to the fact that the OP has requested the complainant repeatedly on 25.06.2020, 03.03.2021 and 10.07.2021 and inspite of telephonic discussions, mail messages and letter of OP written by Branch Manager, to supply the requisite documents, the complainant failed to supply the same due to the reason best known to him. Moreover, the complainant has breach the terms and conditions of the policy as he has concealed the true facts. Furthermore, the driver left/parked the truck at a place which was secluded and there was no any guard hence the driver of truck in question did not like a prudent driver/owner. It is settled principle of natural justice and nobody can take benefit of his own wrongs. The complainant reported the matter to the police of police station Indri but there is delay of two days in lodging the FIR as the truck was misplaced on 04.06.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 06.06.2020. 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 or the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and affidavit of Kulvinder Singh Ex.CW2/A, copy of registration certificate Ex.C1, copy of insurance Ex.C2, copy of untraced report Ex.C3, copy of statement of Kulwinder Ex.C4, copy of report U/s 173 Cr.P.C Ex.C5, copy of Aadhar Card Ex.C6, copy of NOC Ex.C7 and copy of Form 35 Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 03.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kamal, Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of policy Ex.OP1, copy of FIR Ex.OP2, copy of letters Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4 and investigation report Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 13.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             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.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the truck of the complainant has been stolen by some unknown person. Immediately after the incident, complainant reported the matter to police of Police Station Indri and got lodged FIR No.197 dated 06.06.2020, under Section 379 of IPC. Intimation in this regard was also sent to the OP and complainant also lodged the claim alongwith all the required documents to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim and lastly closing the same on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant has not supplied required documents despite various repeated requests and reminders. In the absence of requisite documents the OP was unable to decide the claim and due to non-submission of documents, OP had closed the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 10.07.2021 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten lacs only).

10.           The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP, vide letter Ex.OP3 dated 10.07.2021, on the ground of non-submission documents.

11.           The complainant has alleged that he had submitted all the documents with the OP but despite that the OP has closed the claim of the complainant. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file copy of NOC Ex.C7 and copy of Form 35 Ex.C8. When the complainant has placed on file the copies of aforesaid documents as to why he would not supply the documents to the OP. It is also unbelievable that an insured whose personal interest is involved for such huge amount why he will not supplied the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigation. The other document i.e. permit and fitness certificate sought by the OP is irrelevant and there is no legal hitch to decide the claim without the submission of these documents, when the complainant had already submitted the required documents for settlement of the claim. Moreover, non-submission of fitness certificate and permit is violation of Motor Vehicle Act and not the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the demand of abovementioned documents are unnecessary and irrelevant and just to harass the complainant and denied the claim of the complainant. Hence, in view of the above, we found no substance in this contention of the OP.

12.           The next plea taken by the OP is that there is two days delay of intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question by the complainant to the OP. In the present case vehicle in question was stolen on 4-6-2020 and complainant intimated to the police on the and in this regard the First Information Report was registered in Police Station, Indri. Generally, the owner/Driver of the vehicle first tries to search the vehicle at his own level, but when he fails to trace out the same, the matter is reported to the police. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the police does not register the FIR immediately after getting information of theft of any vehicle, either the complainant is asked to trace out the vehicle at his own level or efforts are made by the police for searching the vehicle, but when the vehicle is not traced out, then only the FIR is registered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the case titled as Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and anr. in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.11 of the said judgment, that it is a common knowledge that a person who has lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holder in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We also placed reliance upon the judgment in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co. in Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.20 of the said judgment has held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. The similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dharamnder Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others in civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 date of decision 13.09.2021 and Jatin Construction Company Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. in Civil Apeal no.1069 of 2022 date of decision 11.02.2022.

13.           The next plea taken by the OP is that the complainant had not taken all reasonable steps to safeguard his vehicle from loss or damage. Here OP has completely failed to explain the act of complainant amounting to negligent behaviour for not safeguarding the vehicle. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that a common person never wants to let his vehicle for damages or to be stolen. This plea taken by the OP seems to be a concocted one and has been cooked up only in order to deprive the complainant from his genuine claim. Hence, this plea taken by the OP has no force at all.

14.  

“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”.   

15.           Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that acts of the OP while closing the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved genuine one. 

16.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2/Ex.OP1, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc.

17.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing of claim 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 expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated:20.03.2024

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

               Member                             Member