Haryana

Karnal

CC/208/2021

Satish Munjal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.S. Moonak

18 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.208 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.07.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 18.11.2024

 

Satish Munjal, aged 44 years, son of Shri Attam Parkash, resident of house no.16/1212, Moti Nagar, Karnal. Aadhar no.3143 2551 9937.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, G.T. Road, Karnal.
2. Indusind Bank Limited, through its Authorized/GPA Holder Shri Amit Kumar (Legal Executive), Karnal.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Kanavdeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri A.K. Vohra, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Suraj Kanwar, counsel for the OP no.2.

       

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of the truck bearing RC no.HR-45-C-6230 (Model 2017). The same was insured with the OP, vide policy no.1107013118P110969344, valid from 25.11.2018 to 24.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The policy was comprehensive package. The said truck was being used/plied for earning his livelihood by the complainant. On 15.10.2019, the complainant himself was driving the aforesaid truck and was going from Karnal to Yamuna Nagar for loading the same, at about 11.30 p.m. when the truck reached near Darad Chowk on Karnal-Indri Road, in the meanwhile the rear tyre of the truck all of a sudden burst, the complainant stopped his truck there and parked the same on the side of the road duly locked and secured. However, the truck was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant enquired about the truck from the persons there but he could not find the truck. The matter was reported to the local police, a criminal case was registered vide FIR no.1050/2019, under section 379 IPC with the police of Police Station Sadar, District Karnal. The matter was duly reported to the office of OP. OP appointed a surveyor, who conducted the spot survey and prepared his report. The necessary claim form and all other relevant documents were submitted to the OP no.1. Both the original keys of the truck was also handed over to the surveyor of the company. The untrace report was also submitted to the OP no.1. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP no.1 number of times to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim of complainant. The claim of the complainant was neither repudiated nor allowed by the OP. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.25,00,000/- on account of theft of truck in question alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of theft till its realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental pain, agony as well as harassment.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 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 claim of the complainant duly processed, considered on merits and the same was not found payable due to the fact that the OP has requested the complainant repeatedly, vide letters dated 27.05.2020, 30.07.2020, 21.09.2020, 12.11.2020 and 17.12.2020 and telephonic reminders for the supply of Untraceable report pertaining to claim against vehicle/Truck no.HR-45C-6230 which was lost on 15.10.2019 but till date the complainant has not produced the untraceable certificate which is very much essential and material for the settlement of the claim. The complainant was also informed vide registered speaking letter dated 25.02.2021 that no further correspondence in this regard will be entertained by the OP and the claim file is closed as “No Claim.” The complainant has no insurable interest. The complainant inspite of supplying the untraceable report to the OP prefer to file the present complaint and lower down the well established reputation of the OP in the general public knowingly and intentionally. The present complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that complainant has alleged that he was going to Karnal to Yamuna Nagar for loading the same but at about 11.30 p.m. the rear tyre of the said truck was brust and he parked the insured truck alone at the road side unattended which is against the provisions of the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate 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 OP no.2 has financed a loan to Satish Munjal i.e. complainant, vide loan agreement/contract no.DDK01036D dated 21.11.2017, for the purchase of vehicle i.e. Eicher Pro 6037 S CWC RHDNGB 28 ABS bearing registration no.HR-45C-6230. The agreement value was Rs.35,72,075/- which was to be paid in 54 monthly installments of Rs.69,000/-, this fact was concealed by the complainant in his complaint. The complainant committed default in repayment of the loan amount and to repay the outstanding loan amount. Complainant issued a cheque and the same was dishonoured and in this regard a case under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act is pending in the court of Ms. Neelam Ld. JMIC, Karnal and the same is fixed for 14.11.2023 for bailable warrants and the same is intentionally not appearing before the Hon’ble Court.  As per the agreement, the matter was referred to the arbitrator and the award was also passed in this regard in which it has been mentioned that the complainant Satish Munjal has to pay a sum of Rs.22,93,408/- and further a sum of Rs.1500/- towards Arbitrator’s fees and further a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs, beside the aforesaid amount, the DH is also entitled to interest on Rs.22,93,408/- at the rate of 36% per annum from 19.03.2020 till the date of this award and with further interest @ 18% per annum from the date of this award till the date of actual payment and the execution of the same is pending in the court of Shri Abhishek Verma Ld. CJ(DJ), Karnal and is pending for 25.10.2023 for notice. As per the award an amount of Rs.39,24,963/- is pending and due against the complainant which is to be paid by the complainant to the OP no.2 till date. 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 qua OP no.2.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC of the vehicle Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of driving licence Ex.C3, copy of final report submitted by the police Ex.C4, copy of FIR Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 30.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kamal, Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Ravi Mani, Investigator Ex.OP2/A, copy of investigation report Ex.O1, copies of letters dated 24.05.2020, 30.07.2020, 21.09.2020, 12.11.2020, 17.12.2020 and 25.01.2021 Ex.O2 to Ex.O7 and closed the evidence on 14.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Kumar, Legal Executive Ex.OP2/A, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP2/1, copy of account statement Ex.OP2/2, copy of award passed by Arbitrator Ex.OP2/3 and closed the evidence on 19.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

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

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his vehicle with the OP no.1 and got financed with the OP no.2. On 15.10.2019, the insured vehicle has been stolen by some unknown near Darad Chowk Indri Road, Karnal. In this regard an FIR no.1050 dated 16.10.2019, under section 379 IPC lodged in the Police Station Sadar, District Karnal . The intimation was also given to the OP no.1 and OP no.1 appointed a surveyor, who conducted the spot survey and prepared his report. Both the original keys of the truck was also handed over to the surveyor of the company. The untrace report was also submitted to the OP no.1. After that complainant requested the OP no.1 several times to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim of complainant and closed the same on the false and frivolous ground. Now the complainant has cleared all the loan amount and OP no.2 issued No Objection Certificate and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that inspite of the repeated letters and reminders, complainant failed to submit the untrace report, hence the claim of complainant has rightly been closed by the OP, vide letter dated 25.01.2021 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant availed the loan facility from the OP for purchasing the vehicle in question. Complainant became defaulter for not paying the EMIs in time. Now the complainant has cleared all amounts and OP has issued NOC in this regard and nothing is due against the OP. OP has no objection, if the awarded amount be paid to the complainant.

12.           It is pertinent to mention here that today, during the course of remaining arguments, learned counsel for the OP no.2 placed on file copy of NOC with regard to clearance of the loan amount and in this regard he has suffered a separate statement to the effect that complainant has cleared all the outstanding amount against the loan obtained by him regarding the truck bearing registration no.HR-45C-6230 and nothing is due against him. The NOC with regard to the said loan has already been issued to the complainant. The copy of NOC dated 18.11.2024 has taken on file as Mark-A. 

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

14.           Admittedly, complainant got insured his vehicle with the OP no.1 and got financed from the OP no.2. It is also admitted that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, vehicle in question was stolen. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle in question was Rs.25,00,000/-. It is also admitted complainant has cleared the loan amount and OP no.2 has issued the NOC in this regard.

15.           The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP No.1, vide letter Ex.O7 dated 25.01.2021 on the ground of non-submission of untraceable certificate issued by the court.

16.           The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP no.1  on the abovesaid ground. The complainant has alleged that he has already submitted the untrace report to the surveyor of the OP. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, complainant has placed on file, copy of untrace report Ex.C4 dated 16.11.2019, which has been prepared by the SHO of concerned Police Station. The claim has been closed on 25.01.2021 and police has prepared the final report on 16.11.2019. When the police has prepared the said report on 16.11.2019 as to why the complainant has not submitted the same to the OP. Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such amount why he will not supply the untrace report to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigations. Further, it is not a case of the OP that vehicle in question has been recovered by the police. SHO concerned has prepared the final report (untrace report) on 16.11.2019, if the same has not been submitted before the Illaqua Magistrate by the police for a long time for that complainant cannot blamed.

17.           For the sake of arguments, if it be presumed that untrace report has not been submitted with the insurance company, in that eventuality, the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated on the said ground, when the FIR has been lodged without any delay. Further, the complainant has done what all he could do or his required to do under the policy of insurance to maintain his claim. In the present case, neither the insurance company nor the police authority has doubted the genuineness of the incident of theft of insured vehicle.  In this regard, we relied upon the case law titled as M/s Delkon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. III (1993) (NC) wherein it has been held that “the claim of complainant cannot denied on the ground that the final report was not forthcoming, if the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately, but has not received the Final Report from the police.

18.           Furthermore, in the present case the insurance company has also not been able to prove that there was any such condition in the insurance policy that in the event of theft of the stolen vehicle, the claim cannot be settled without submission of the final report by the insured. Even otherwise, even if there is any such condition, the complainant in the present case cannot be denied his legitimate claim on the ground of non-submission of final report when the facts and circumstances clearly prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the insured vehicle had actually been stolen during the substance of the policy of insurance and the same has not been recovered by the police authorities. Hence, the plea taken by the OP that complainant has not submitted the untrace report has no force.

19. Now a days, it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and when insured amount is claimed, they make such type of excuses. Thus, the denial of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment 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”.

20.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OP no.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while closing the claim of the complainant, which is otherwise proved genuine one.

21.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2, the insured declared value(IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.25,00,000/-.   Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.25,00,000/- the insured declared value of the vehicle alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses etc.

22.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 i.e. insurance company to pay Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. twenty five lakhs only) the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 07.04.2021 till its realization to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. 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.

Dated:18.11.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                            Member                        Member