Haryana

Kaithal

67/21

Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo Gen Insu. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Baljinder Singh

23 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:             15.03.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:       23.01.2024.

 

Ishwar Singh s/o Shri Bir Singh, r/o village Jakholi Tehsil and District Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Universal Sompo, General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, c/o SCF No.55, Third Floor, Sector-6, Main Market, Karnal.

...Opposite Party

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Arvind Khurania, Adv. for the Opposite Party.

                  

ORDER - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is the owner of vehicle Eicher 1110 bearing Registration No.HR-47B-0826 and got insured the same from OP w.e.f. 04.01.2019 to 03.01.2020 after receiving total premium of Rs.30497/-. The said vehicle got stolen in the midnight of 11/12.11.2019 and he got registered an FIR No.525 dated 18.11.2019 in Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal. All the original documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Policy Certificate etc. were in the vehicle which was stolen. He intimated to the OP in this regard, by submitting the documents demanded by it. The police of Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal also submitted untrace report before the Hon’ble JMIC, Kaithal and he submitted the same to the OP along with other documents, who assured to reimburse his claim within 10-15 days. But the OP illegally repudiated his claim without any notice to him. The above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, stating therein that as per version of complainant, the truck bearing registration No.HR-47B-0826 was stolen during the intervening night on 11/12.11.2019, whereas, as per FIR No.525 dated 18.11.2019 was got registered in the PS Civil Lines, Kaithal after the delay of 6 days, the vehicle was stolen on intervening night on 12/13.11.2019, which was parked by the complainant behind the ply factory. The OP after receiving the information of loss from the complainant, immediately register the claim and appointed M/s Secure Risk Management & Insurance Services, who served letters dated 29.11.2019, 03.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 to the complainant for supplying the mentioned documents for processing the claim, but he did not provide the documents. After scrutiny of documents, it was found that the road tax of the vehicle was paid after date of loss on 21.11.2019 and 30.12.2019. As per condition No.1 of the insurance policy, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. In the case in hand, FIR was lodged after a gap of 6 days. The insurance company after perusing the investigation report and statements of complainant and others, and other documents repudiated the claim vide letter dated 23.01.2020. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal the same.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-CA to Annexure-CL.

5.                On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R10.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the owner of vehicle Eicher 1110 bearing Registration No.HR-47B-0826 and got insured the same from OP w.e.f. 04.01.2019 to 04.01.2020. He further argued that the said vehicle got stolen in the midnight of 11/12.11.2019 and the complainant got registered an FIR No.525 dated 18.11.2019 in Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal. All original documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Policy Certificate etc. were in the vehicle which was stolen. The complainant intimated to the OP in this regard by submitting the documents demanded by it. The police of Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal also submitted untrace report before the Hon’ble JMIC, Kaithal and the complainant submitted the same to the OP along with other documents, who assured to reimburse his claim within 10-15 days. But the OP illegally repudiated his claim without any notice to him. The above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has argued that as per version of complainant, the truck bearing registration No.HR-47B-0826 was stolen during the intervening night on 11/12.11.2019, whereas, as per FIR No.525 dated 18.11.2019 was got registered in the PS Civil Lines, Kaithal after the delay of 6 days, the vehicle was stolen on intervening night on 12/13.11.2019, which was parked by the complainant behind the ply factory. The OP after receiving the information of loss from the complainant, immediately register the claim and appointed M/s Secure Risk Management & Insurance Services, who served letters dated 29.11.2019, 03.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 to the complainant for supplying the mentioned documents for processing the claim, but he did not provide the documents. After scrutiny of documents, it was found that the road tax of the vehicle was paid after date of loss on 21.11.2019 and 30.12.2019. As per condition No.1 of the insurance policy, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. In the case in hand, FIR was lodged after a gap of 6 days. The insurance company after perusing the investigation report and statements of complainant and others, and other documents repudiated the claim vide letter dated 23.01.2020. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal the same.

9.                Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of vehicle Eicher 1110 bearing Registration No.HR-47B-0826 vide Registration  Certificate Annexure-CD and got insured the same from OP w.e.f. 04.01.2019 to 03.01.2020 with IDV of Rs.4,50,000/- vide Goods Carrying  Package Policy Annexure-CC. The said vehicle was stolen in the midnight of 11/12.11.2019 and the complainant had given a complaint in this regard to SHO, PS City Kaithal Annexure-CB, upon which, an FIR No.0525 dated 18.11.2019 was registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal Annexure CA/R-1. The police of Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal could not found the said vehicle and submitted Untraced Report, before the learned JMIC, Kaithal, which was accepted by the said Court, vide order dated 14.01.2021 Annexure-CG.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that he lodged the claim with the OP, who illegally repudiated the same. On the other hand, the OP has firstly contended that the complainant failed to provide the requisite original documents despite issuance of letters dated 29.11.2019, 03.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 to the OP. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the vehicle in question has been stolen, therefore, the original documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Policy Certificate etc. of the vehicle in question was stolen and we found force in this contention of complainant, because in routine manner, everyone puts the original documents relating to the concerned vehicle in the said vehicle, as is in the case in hand and since in the case in hand, the vehicle in question has been stolen, therefore, the original documents relating to vehicle in question has been stolen with the said vehicle, so, the above ground taken by the OP for repudiating the claim of complainant is unjustified and wrong.

11.              Learned counsel for OP has further contended that the vehicle in question has been allegedly stolen on 12.11.2019, whereas, the complainant he got registered the FIR on 18.11.2019 in Police Station Civil Lines, Kaithal i.e. after a gap of 6 days. But it is pertinent to mention here that there would have been no justification for the OP for repudiating the claim of complainant in its entirety only for such violation of term and condition on this ground. In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in II (2006) CPJ page 83 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that in case of violation of condition of policy as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis. In the authority titled as Mohammad Ejaj Vs. UII, 2014(4) CLT page 161 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana), it has been held that Insurance Claim-Repudiation-On the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. and 36 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to the Insurance Companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of F.I.R. and late intimation to the Insurance Company-Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to Insurance Companies which are binding upon them-Appeal accepted. In the authority cited in 2016(2) CLT page 434 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana) titled as Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satbir, wherein the head-note, it is mentioned that Insurance claim-Theft of insured tractor-Prompt FIR-Delay of 66 days in intimation to insurance company-Held-In the Circular Ref:IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated September 20, 2011 issued by ‘IRDA’, it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”-Insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant-Appeal dismissed.

12.              The above authorities are fully applicable to the facts of instant case. Hence, we are of the considered view that the claim in respect of vehicle in question should have been settled by the OP on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement i.e. 75% of the insured value i.e. Rs.3,37,500/- (Rs.4,50,000/- x 75%). So, the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,37,500/- on non-standard settlement basis. Thus, the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant in toto.

13.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the OP, to make the payment of Rs.3,37,500/-, to the complainant, along with compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% per annum, from the date of this order, till its realization.

14.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:23.01.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.