Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 295
Instituted on : 12.04.2021
Decided on : 06.11.2024
Ashok(Age 40 years) s/o Roop Kumar resident of Village Pakasma, Distt. Rohtak
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. 3rd Floor, SCF-55, Sector-6, Main Market, Karnal-132001, through its Manager/Authorized Person.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ravikant Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Ruchi Chawla, Advocate for the Opposite party.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a Motor Cycle bearing registration no.HR-95-1272. This vehicle was insured with The Universal Sompo General Insurance Company under Policy no.USGI/POSWEB/0151792/00/000 for a period from 17.05.2018 to 16.05.2019. The Insurance Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.45,244/-. The alleged motor cycle of the complainant was stolen and the complainant informed the same to the police. When thealleged motor cycle could not be traced out, then an FIR No.724 dated 12.10.2018 under section 379IPC was registered at Sampla Police Station. Complainant also informed the insurance company verbally as well as in writing and submitted all the necessary documents as requested by the officials of the opposite party. These documents were acknowledged by the opposite party. The opposite party issued a letter on 27.01.2019 requesting further arbitrary documents and the complainant complied with the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the motorcycle in question was self purchased by the complainant, so the requirement of Form 35 or NOC and Loan Statement are not applicable in this case. Untraced report was issued by the concerned Court on 01.03.2021. However, despite complying with all the requirements, the opposite party refused to settle the claim of the complainant. There is deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practices on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.45,244/- alongwith @18% interest. Additionally the complainant has requested for compensation of Rs.50,000/- as harassment and Rs.22,000/- for litigation cost besides any other relief which this Commission may found appropriate.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that on receipt of claim intimation on 20.10.2018, opposite party registered the claim of the complainant and allotted the claim number CL18082587 for better communication in regard to the present loss. During correspondence there were several other contradictory statements/facts, which requires clarification/corroboration and some more documents were required for look in to the genuineness of the loss/accident and thus letter dated 27.01.2019 was served requesting to provide documents detailed in letter. However complainant opted not to revert on the same, thus claim of the complainant was rightly declined vide letter dated 04.05.2019, as there was un-explained delay of 08 days in intimating insurance company, which amounts to violation of terms and condition no.1 & failure on the part of the complainant to submit the following documents:- a) Original RC, b) RC Extract form, c) Final untrace report, d) Service record if any, e) Letter to RTO, f) NCRB Report. The complainant bothered not to revert on the queries made by the insurance company and had filed the present complaint to avoid reply to the queries detailed above. Hence due to non submission of the documents/queries, the claim of the complainant has not been settled. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. There is no deficiency in the services on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence on 25.11.2022. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the evidence on 14.06.2023.
4. In the present case the claim of the complainant has been declined by the respondent insurance company on the ground that the complainant has not submitted the required documents and clarifications with the insurance company. The intimation of the same has been given to the complainant vide letter dated 04.05.2019 and the respondent officials placed on record the said letter as Ex.R3. We have minutely perused the alleged letter. The perusal of this letter itself shows that the claim of the complainant has been declined by the insurance company on the ground that the intimation has been given in the office of insurance company belatedly i.e. of 8 days. Hence there is violation of policy condition no.1. In this regard it is observed that the theft had taken place on 12.10.2018 and the FIR was lodged on the same day. Regarding the delay of 8 days in giving information to the opposite party, Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 titled as Dharmender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &Ors., has held that: “Repudiation of claim on ground of delay of 78 days in not informing insurance company of theft-Held, mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured” and in civil appeal no. 4758 OF 2023titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “Theft of Vehicle - Any violation of the condition of the insurance policy should be in the nature of a fundamental breach to deny the claimant insurance coverage. 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 law cited above are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. The insurance company further submitted that some documents are still pending towards the complainant i.e. original RC, RC Extract form, final untrace report accepted by CJM, service record, if any, letter to RTO and NCRB report. As per the complainant he has submitted all the required documents with the insurance company. It has been further submitted that the untraced report has already been submitted with the insurance company so the legal notice has been issued towards the insurance company and alongwith the legal notice untraced report dated 01.03.2021 was also handed over to the opposite party. We have minutely perused the documents. The complainant has placed on record a letter Ex.C6 dated 27.01.2019 and through this letter the respondent insurance company demanded some documents from the complainant i.e. 1. NCRB report, Service Record before theft, both keys in original, Form 35 or NOC, Loan statement of EMI account of NOC, Aadhar Card. Regarding these documents, the complainant has submitted that he has not ever took the loan from any financial institution or company regarding the vehicle in question. So the loan statement of EMI account or NOC is not required. As per complainant he has already clarified to the insurance company that he has not taken any loan from the bank or financial institution. Moreover the hypothecation has not been marked in the RC or in the insurance policy.Both the original keys have already been submitted by the complainant with the insurance company. We have compared the letter Ex.C6/Ex.R4and Ex.R3. The perusal of letter Ex.C6 dated 27.01.2019 itself shows that through this letter, insurance company never demanded final untraced report accepted by CJM, letter to RTO and RC extract form the complainant. No other letter has been placed on record by the opposite party through which above said 3 documents have been demanded from the complainant except the letter dated 04.05.2019. They finally issued no claim letter dated 04.05.2019 placed on record as Ex.R3, wrongly mentioning therein that the alleged documents were pending from the side of complainant whereas no such documents were demanded before 04.05.2019. As per our opinion, the insurance company took new objections in reply and affidavit. All the necessary documents had already been submitted by the complainant with the insurance company. Moreover the service record of the motorcycle is not required for the disposal of the theft claim of the vehicle of complainant. As such the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the claim as per IDV of the vehicle.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.45244/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.04.2021 till its realisation, to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 06.11.2024 of this Commission. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.
6. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
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:
06.11.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
.......................................
Vijender Singh, Member
