Punjab

Sangrur

CC/223/2021

Sumit Kumar Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 223

 Instituted on:   11.02.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     01.08.2023

 

Sumit Kumar Mittal S/o Vinod Kumar Mittal, resident of House No.2450, Magazine Street, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. Unit 401, 4^th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai through its Branch Office, 5^th Floor, SCO 10-11, Feroze Gandhi Market Road, District Courts Area, Model Gram, Ludhiana, Punjab.

                                                        ..Opposite party.

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

 

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his Maruti Alto Car bearing registration number PB-13-AY-0185 under policy number 2311/57347563/00/000 for the period from 29.6.2017 to 28.6.2018 for the insured value of Rs.3,47,862/- after paying the requisite premium of Rs.16,492/-.

2.             The case of complainant is that during the intervening night of June 3 and 4, the car in question was stolen when it was parked in front of the shed of the shop of the complainant at Anaj Mandi, Sangrur. When after searching the car was not found, the complainant got recorded FIR number 6 dated 4.6.2018 at PS City-1 Sangrur on the same day and intimation of theft of the car was given to the OP by email and the OP accordingly registered claim number CL18026904.  Thereafter OP appointed M/s. Secure Risk Management and Insurance Service, Ludhiana  to investigate the claim and the complainant submitted the demanded documents, such as, insurance policy, claim form, RC, copy of FIR and original keys etc. to the surveyor.  The claim of the complainant was not settled by the OP despite best efforts of the complainant. Even the complainant sent emails dated 3.1.2019, 9.4.2019, 11.4.2019, 17.6.2019, 6.7.2019, 27.9.2019 and 17.12.2020. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the police also presented report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in case FIR number 6 dated 4.6.2018 that the police failed to recover the car of the complainant.  Despite all this, the OP did not settle the claim of the complainant and failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.3,47,862/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by the OP,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Commission and that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted fact that car of the complainant was insured with the OP and theft of the car has also not been denied by the OP. The only question for not settling the claim by the OP is that the complainant did not submit the final untraced report (certified by court), as such the claim of the complainant was not settled.  Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/4 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. 

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the complainant and OP that the car of the complainant was insured with the OP and theft of the car in question on the intervening night of 3/ 4 June, 2018 is also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the OP appointed investigator and submitted the report. In the present case, the repudiation of the claim by the OP is only on the ground that the complainant did not submit the Final Untraced Report (Certified by court) vide letter dated 28.12.2018 Ex.OP/4.

7.             To support the contention of the complainant that there is no requirement of the untraced report (certified by court), the complainant has cited ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Partha Sarathi Banerjee and another, Revision Petition No.2789 of 2012, decided on 16.11.2020 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, wherein it has been held that when the police has already filed a report under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and theft of vehicle has also been corroborated by police report, then there is no illegality in the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.  The same facts are covered in the present case, as the police in the present case has already submitted report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in FIR number 6 dated 4.6.2018 on 17.10.2018, Ex.C-19.  It has further been again stated in the police reports Ex.C-20 and Ex.C-21 that the person who had stolen the car i.e. Shri Jaffar Hussain Daar has been declared Professional Offender by the court of CJM and the stolen car has not been found/recovered.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has wrongly withheld the claim of the complainant on the ground mentioned in the repudiation letter Ex.OP/4.

8.             Further the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-3 copy of the insurance policy, copy of the FIR Ex.C-4. Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-16  are copies of the emails sent to the OP for settlement of the claim. ExC-17 is the copy of challan/report under section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted by the police of PS City-1 Sangrur on 17.10.2018. Further to support the contention of complainant, he has produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1.  Since the complainant has successfully proved on the record that there is no need to produce on record the untraced report certified by the court, when the complainant has produced on record the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Partha Sarathi Banerjee and another (supra).

9.             Now, coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. It is on record that the car in question was insured for Rs.3,47,862/- as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy, Ex.C-3. It is worth mentioning here that IDV of the car in question was Rs.3,47,862/- as the manufacturing year of the car is 2017 and the car was stolen in the very first year of the insurance of the new car.

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,47,862/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.02.2021 till realisation in full. We further direct OP  to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5500/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by OP within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

11.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

 

                        Pronounced.

 

                        August 1, 2023.