Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/147/2020

Natha Singh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv.Devinder Kumar

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	147 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	27.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	07.06.2023

 

                     

            

 

Natha Singh Sharma s/o Joginder Singh r/o House No.1500, Sector 21, Panchkula -134109 (Haryana).

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1]  United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 357-358, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh -160035 through its Branch Manager.

 

2]  United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Motor OD Service Hub, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh -160017 through its Authorized Signatory/Regional Manager.

 

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:	SMT.SURJEET KAUR,    PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel of complainant Sh.Rajesh K. Sharma, Counsel of OPs.

   

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

         The complainant’s case in precise is that his Car bearing Regd.No.CH-03Y-1920 duly insured with the OPs vide insurance policy (Ann.C-1) valid from 29.09.2017 to 28.09.2018, was stolen in the intervening night of 22/23.04.2018 while it was parked outside his house. The car was not traced despite his best efforts for 2 days and then he lodged an FIR No.215 dated 25.04.2014 with Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula (Ann.C-3). Since the vehicle was not traced, as such the police case was closed as Untraced and order in this regard was also issued by the CJM, Panchkula (Ann.C-4). It is stated that the complainant had immediately given the intimation of theft to the police, but was not aware about the urgency of informing the OPs as per the reasons stated in the letter dated 16.12.2019    (Ann.C-5).  It is also stated that the OPs illegally repudiated that the genuine claim vide letter dated 19.07.2019 (Ann.C-6). Alleging that the said acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant preferred this complaint.

 

2]       In their written version, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that during investigation, it was found that the complainant lodged the FIR in question after two days of the incident of theft and the Company was informed regarding the loss after inordinate delay of six months on 18.10.2019. There was no explanation on the part of the complainant for delay of two days in registering the FIR and inordinate delay informing the OPs and as such there was violation of the Condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the same was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 19.07.2019 (Ann.R-6). Thereafter, the complainant again submitted the representation along with documents etc. and the same was considered and the repudiation letter was affirmed. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant filed replication to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterated the contents of the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.

 

6]       Admittedly, the complainant’s car in question, duly insured with OPs was stolen during currency of policy period on intervening night of 22/23.4.2018 while parked near his house.  It is undisputed that the theft was reported to police who lodged FIR No.215, dated 25.4.2018 at P.S. Sector 15, Panchkula. The Untrace Report dated 9.12.2019 furnished by the police in respect of the car in question, has also been accepted by Court of Ld.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula vide Ann.C-4. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs alleging inordinate delay of six months in informing the Insurance Company amount the theft loss.

 

7]       It is not the case of the OP Insurance Company that the police authorities have not investigated the case of theft of the car in question.  The OPs neither alleged that the police authorities are not sufficient or competent to investigate such case, as in hand. More so, the untraced report in respect of the theft case of the car in question has also been accepted by the Court of Ld.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula (Ann.C-1). Once, the matter in question has already been investigated by the police and untraced report has been accepted by the Court, the OP Insurance Company cannot raise plea of delay in informing them. The OP Insurance Company cannot act as super investigator over & above the police authorities, the authority concerned, to investigate the theft case of car in question, hence their ground to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant stating delay in intimation to them is illegal and unjustified.

  

8]       We are also guided by the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil Appeal No.653 of 2020 – Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance company Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.1.2020 and the present case is also covered under the said decision.

 

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion, finding and case law, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties is proved. Therefore, present the complaint is allowed against the OPs with following directions:-

 

(a) To pay Insured Declare Value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.99,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 19.7.2019 till its actual payment.

(b) To pay Rs.25,000/- as composite amount towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant on account of deficient services as well as litigation cost.

 

         This order be complied with by the OP, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

7^th June, 2023                                                               Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER