Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 82.
Instituted on : 04.02.2021.
Decided on : 09.06.2023.
Suber Singh Saini age 48 years, son of Sh. Bani Singh Saini r/o 236/C Housing Board Flats, Sector 51 A, Chandigarh now R/o house No.1373(P) Sector 3 Urban Estate Rohtak.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Lted. Through Divisional Manager Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 17 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.V.K.Chugh, Advocates for the complainant.
Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of a car bearing No.CH-01BH-0006 and the same was insured with opposite party vide policy no.221400031180160125464 for the period from 11.06..2018 to 10.06.2019 for an IDV of Rs.1700000/-. The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was got stolen on 05.05.2019 in the area of Lawyarance road Delhi . Complainant immediately informed the police telephonically on the same day at 7.41A.M and also informed the opposite party about the theft of vehicle. An FIR No.015655 dated 07.05.2019 was registered with P.S.Keshav Puram North West Delhi, u/s 379 IPC. The police submitted the untraced report on 25.07.2019.Complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the same was illegally rejected by the opposite party vide letter dated 16.03.2020. The complainant filed an appeal before the office of Insurance Ombudsman and vide award dated 21.10.2020 a sum of 75% of the admissible claim amount was allowed to the complainant and accordingly, the opposite party has paid the said amount of Rs.1274000/- on 11.12.2020 and the said amount has been received by the complainant under protest. The complainant is entitled to receive the full amount of claim and there was no fault on the part of the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite party to pay the remaining amount but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.426000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs.100000/- on account of unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that in the present case car was stolen on 05.05.2019 whereas FIR has been lodged on 07.05.2019 i.e. after a lapse of 2 days which is in violation of insurance policy condition No.1. It is further submitted that as per guidelines of IRDA, the IDV of said car should not have been more than Rs.13.5 lacs. Moreover, even if OP consider the IDV of car in the expiring policy of Rs.1698160/- and IDV of current policy should have been 10% less than that as per guidelines i.e. Rs.15.30 lacs. However, insured opted for a sum insured for Rs.17lacs without any justifiable reason. Opposite party deputed investigator M/s Skyland investigating agency to investigate the theft of said car. It reflects that car was parked outside the gate of premises unattended without taking due precautions resulting of alleged theft of car which is a gross negligence and violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is also submitted that the complainant has received the amount of Rs.1274000/- on 11.12.2020 as full and final payments of the said claim and nothing is due. The claim has already been settled as per Ombudsman order dated 21.10.2020. So the complaint is not maintainable nor there is any deficiency in service on the art of opposite party. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and has closed his evidence on dated 28.09.2022. Learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R19 and closed his evidence on dated 25.05.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. 19 documents have been placed on record by the respondent in its evidence. Initially after receiving the information regarding the theft of the vehicle, the investing agency namely Skyland Investigation agency was appointed to investigate the matter. The investigating agency submitted his report with the respondent office on dated 26.07.2019. Thereafter an addendum has also been submitted by the Skyland investigation agency with the insurance company on dated 26.02.2020. After considering all the facts and circumstances and as per law the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on different grounds which has been mentioned in Ex.R18 and Ex.R19. Both these letter have been issued by the insurance company on dated 27.02.2020. Thereafter the complainant approached the office of the insurance Ombudsman and submitted his complaint on dated 29.07.2020. We have minutely perused the documents and report of Ombudsman which is placed on record as Ex.R3. As per this report it has been mentioned that : “Beside deficiencies on the part of the insured, investigator Skyland Investigation agency vide their report dated 26.07.2019 informed that he found no evidence or a hint of any attempt to conceal any fact on part of the insured nor was there any sort of false information being provided in this case to mislead. He concluded that there is a genuine case of vehicle theft in which there is no evidence of any kind of manipulation of facts. Keeping in view the facts of the case and considering circumstances in which theft took place, total denial of claim by insurance company is not justified. Hence, insurance company is directed to pay 75% admissible claim amount to the insured in above said claim as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days of the receipt of award copy”. Meaning thereby the insurance Ombudsman allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. As per our opinion when there is no fault on the part of complainant and it has been specifically admitted by the investigating agency in his report that the case is genuine one and he has not found any type of manipulation of the facts in the case in hand. In that situation why the Ombudsman deducted 25% amount from the IDV of the vehicle in question. As per our opinion the complainant is entitled for the whole amount i.e. IDV of the vehicle. It has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint in para no.4 that he has already received an amount of Rs.1274000/- on dated 11.12.2020. In that situation the complainant is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.426000/- after deducting the excess clause of Rs.1000/- i.e. Rs.425000/- from the opposite party.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.425000/-(Rupees four lac twenty five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.02.2021 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.06.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
