Haryana

Karnal

76/2014

Chaman Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva

23 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.43 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.: 20.03.,2014

                                                          Date of decision: 23.02.2016

 

Chaman Lal son of Sh.Telu Ram resident of ward no.14, Mohalla Khatika Wala VPO Jundla district Karnal.

.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

 

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Durga Mandir Complex, near Bus stand, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-        Sh.Muddit Arora Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Narender Chaudhary Advocate for the Opposite  Party.

 

ORDER:                  

  

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-05AD-8551 insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No.  1107003112P300713092  which was valid from 19.10.2012 to 18.10.2013. His  friend Ram Kumar alongwith others went for   religious tour to Kadernath in the month of June, 2013 in the said vehicle. While   the vehicle was lying  parked on the road side, the  same was washed away at Gauri  Kund.  Some of the occupants of the vehicle were also washed away in the tragedy   when they had gone to pay  obeisance  at Kadernath.   The matter was reported to the police.    The system in Uttrakhand  was not working properly, because of mass casualties.  Intimation was sent to the Opposite Party and required documents were submitted for settlement of the claim. The Opposite Party issued the letters dated 20.11.2013 and 4.12.2013 asking him to submit some documents, which were not required for settlement of the claim. He submitted reply also,  vide letter dated 17.12.2013 narrating the entire incident. When he did not get any response from the Opposite Party, legal notice dated 13.1.2014, was got served upon the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Opposite Party  vide  letter dated 21.1.2014 rejected his claim on the ground that as per report of the investigator, the presence of the vehicle at Gauri Kund,  where the loss was reported to have occurred, could  not be substantiated.  The Opposite Party repudiated the genuine claim wrongly and illegally and thus committed deficiency in services due to which he suffered mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct;  that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that there was no deficiency in services.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that matter was got  thoroughly investigated  by the   Opposite Party  through Dr.Joseph K.Masih, who reported that loss of the vehicle at Gauri Kund  could not be substantiated. Moreover, the complainant failed to provide the parking slip,  Petrol/Diesel  purchase slip, Hotel/Dharamshala Bill  en route toll plaza slip, Camera/mobile photographs or State entry slip to substantiate that the vehicle was taken to  Uttrakhand.Ram Kumar,the  driver of the vehicle in his statement stated that he reported the matter of loss of vehicle to the Police Post Gauri Kund on 20.6.2013, whereas in the copy of police report name of complainant Chaman Lal and his mobile No.98130-90047 were mentioned. The copy of the letter written to Regional Transport Officer informing that vehicle was washed away at Gauri Kund was not supplied. The complainant did not comply with the letters dated 4.12.2013 and 20.1.2014, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any relief and his claim was rightly repudiated. The other  averments made in the complaint have not been admitted.      

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Arun Sharma, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Picholia Ex.C2 and affidavit of  Ram Kumar Ex.C3 have been tendered.   

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of S.S.Vasudeva, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP10 have been tendered.         

 

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

 

6.                The vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-05AD-8551  was insured with the Opposite Party.  As per the case of the complainant,  his friend Ram Kumar alongwith other persons went for  religious tour  to   Kadernath in the said vehicle in the month of June 2013, but the vehicle was washed away at Gauri Kund tragedy and Ram Kumar reported the matter to the police. The complainant submitted claim to the Opposite Party, which was repudiated vide letter dated 21.1.2014.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that as per statement of Ram Kumar recorded during investigation, the vehicle was washed away on 16.6.2013 when the same was parked at Gauri Kund and he reported the matter to the police on 20.6.2013, but as per copy of the police report Ex.O3 the matter was reported to the police by Chaman Lal and not by Ram Kumar and mobile number of Chaman  Lal was mentioned  on the said application..  Moreover, the complainant did not submit       parking slip,  Petrol/Diesel  purchase slip, Hotel/Dharamshala Bill  and en route toll plaza slip, Camera/mobile photographs or State entry slip   and letter written to the Regional Transport Officer informing that the vehicle was washed away at Gauri Kund despite letters dated 20.11.2013 and 4..12.2013, the copies of which are Ex.O5 and Ex.O6 respectively. It has further been argued that investigator was also appointed by the Opposite Party  to investigate the matter and as per his report the presence of the insured vehicle at Gauri Kund, where loss was reported to have occurred could not be substantiated. It has been asserted that under such facts and circumstances, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party.

 

8.                A perusal of the copy of the statement of Ram Kumar recorded by the investigator Ex.OP2 shows that he supported  the version put forth by the complainant regarding the loss of his insured vehicle as the same was washed away in the flood at Kedarnath.  He stated that he alongwith other occupants reached at Gauri Kund on 15.6.2013 at about 10:30PM. He parked the vehicle along the side of the road where other vehicles were also parked. Occupants of his vehicle had gone to pay obeisance at Gauri Kund and he stayed with the vehicle.  On 16.6.2013, announcement was made by the police at 6/7 OM for evacuations  of the area of Gauri Kund as there were  heavy floods in that area and he had gone to Hills. Lateron he came to know that all the vehicles parked there were washed away.  On  20.6.2013, he returned to Gauri Kund and reported the matter to the police and thereafter intimation to Chaman Lal was given on 21.6.2013. The complainant Chaman Lal in his statement Ex.OP4  made before the investigator  also made similar statement that on 21.6.2013 he got information from Ram Kumar that his vehicle was washed away in the flood at Gauri Kund and occupants who had gone to pay obeisance  at Kedarnath  were also washed away. Thus, there is no contradiction in the statements of the complainant and   Ram Kumar regarding the factum of loss of vehicle due to flood at Gauri Kund  and reporting the matter to the police by Ram Kumar on 20.6.2013. 

 

9.               The copy of the letter to In-charge, Police Post, Gauri Kund Ex.O3 was purportedly moved  on behalf of Chaman Lal, but as per  the statements of Ram Kumar and Chaman Lal, the said application was moved on 20.6.2013 by Ram Kumar and not by Chaman Lal.   On the said application not only the mobile number of Chaman Lal, but mobile number of Ram Kumar was also mentioned. It is not the case of the Opposite Party  that another mobile  number mentioned on the application was also of Chaman Lal. Admittedly, the mobile number 98130-49047 was of Chaman Lal. Had the application been moved by Chaman Lal, there was no need to mention another mobile number, which was statedly of Ram Kumar. It is not the case of the complainant that the complainant had also gone to Gauri Kund alongwith other persons for pilgrimage.  This fact cannot be disputed that there were devastating floods in Uttrakhand in June 2013 and there were large number of human causalities apart from huge property loss.  Even, the means of communications i.e. mobile phone etc. were not working during that period. In such a situation, it could not be expected from Ram Kumar to convey the complainant  about the loss of  vehicle on 16.6.2013 immediately, because he  must be in the state of panic  and   would have been concerned to save his life instead of giving information to the complainant or police.  On 20.6.2013, when situation eased, he came down from Hill to Gauri Kund and then reported the matter to the police. He informed the complainant about the loss of vehicle on 21.6.2013. It could not be possible for the complainant to reach Gauri Kund on 20.6.2013  to report the matter to the police because of heavy floods , fear, and tension in that area. Therefore, mentioning the name of Chaman Lal on the application to the police does not falsify  the version of the complainant, which finds support from the statement of Ram Kumar recorded by the Investigating Officer and his affidavit Ex.C3.

 

10.               The complainant could not submit the parking slip,  Petrol/Diesel  purchase slip, Hotel/Dharamshala Bill , en route toll plaza slip, Camera/mobile photographs or State entry slip   as required by the Opposite Party , but that could not be reasonable ground for  repudiating his claim. Generally, such slips are kept by the driver in the vehicle itself and not in his pocket.  When the vehicle was  washed away, there could be no question of submitting  such slips by the  driver or complainant. The complainant submitted reply   on  17.12.2013  to the  queries raised by the Opposite Party in the letters  dated 20.11.2013  and 4.12.2012.  It is also worth mentioning that the case of the complainant is  supported not only by the affidavit of Ram Kumar,  but also by Arun Sharma, Sarpanch of village  Picholia regarding the loss of vehicle of the complainant and  washing away of the other persons,  who had gone to Gauri Kund in the said vehicle.

 

11.               In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that there is  enough evidence of the complainant to establish  that his vehicle was driven by Ram Kumar to  Gauri Kund in which some other persons had also travelled and on 16.6.2013, the vehicle was washed away in devastating floods  in the area of Gauri Kund and the loss was reported to the police on 20.6.2013. Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Party was not justified at all. In this way,  there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to pay the sum insured in respect of the vehicle of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.03.2014 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental pain and agony suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the 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:23.02.2016

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Muddit Arora Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Narender Chaudhary Advocate for the Opposite  Party.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:23.02.2016

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.