District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 109/2022.

 Date of Institution:25.02.2022.

Date of Order: 02.05.2023.

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh aged about 26 years S/o Shri Raghvendra Singh, R/o H.No. 136, Gali No. 28, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Sector-22, Faridabad – 121005 Adhaar Card No. 3015 5321 3389, Mobile No. 8860360008.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., First floor, SCF 2, Sector-35, Ashoka Enclave -1, Faridabad through its Branch Manager/Regional Manager/principle Officer/Authorized Signatory…

2.                Universal Sompo General Insurance co. Ltd. Soulstice Building, Plot NO. 52, Ground floor, Sector-44, Gurgaon – 122003, Haryana, India, through its Branch Manager/Regional Manager/principle Officer/Authorized signatory.

3.                Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office NO. 103, First floor, Ackruti Star, MIDC, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400093 through its Branch Manaage/Regional Manager/Principle Officer/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Madhukar Verma,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Nitish Kumar, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant was having a Eicher Canter @ Truck bearing registration No. HR38V8188 of make Eicher 1114, Model 2016, Chassis No. MC2G1HRCoFL110002 and engine No. E413CDFL056350 in red brown colour registered in Regional transport Authority, Faridabad, Haryana in the name of the complainant.  The complainant had already submitted original copy of invoice No. 618PR0000024970 dated 07.02.2019 & other related documents of the above said vehicle to opposite parties on the time of  making of insurance of the said vehicle in the office of the opposite parties.  After the complete satisfaction of opposite parties generates a customer ID No. 1019533984370002 and issued a insurance policy No. 2315/59418228/00B00 to the complainant.  The opposite parties also issued a document of endorsement schedule of Motor Goods Carrying Vehicle cum debit note as endorsement No. 2315/59418228/00/B02 dated 10.09.2019 to the complainant.  The complainant had paid a huge amount of insurance premium and also paid endorsement premium of Rs.706/- against the above said insurance policy. On 31.10.2019 in the night at 10:00pm. the complainant had parked the above said vehicle at outside area of the Whirlpool Company, Industrial Area, NIT, Faridabad and after parked the said vehicle, the complainant had gone to his native village.  On dated 4.11.2019 at around 11:00 a.m. when the complainant looked for his above said vehicle where the same was parked, he found that said vehicle was missing from parking spot, then the complainant searched the said vehicle in the area around the parking spot though himself but despite all the necessary efforts the said vehicle could not be found and finally the complainant informed about theft of above said vehicle to police control room telephonically on 100 number from his mobile No. 9716449289, 9627815028 and local police station of Mujessar, Faridabad also on 04.11.2019 at 11:35a.m.  The said fact about the theft of the above mentioned vehicle was also informed by the complainant to the opposite party without any delay on the same day.    After due verification of spot police lodged FIR No. 827 dated 05.11.2019 under section 379 IPC in Police Station, Mujessar, Faridabad against unknown person regarding the theft of the above mentioned vehicle.  Even after the thorough investigation by the police in the said matter the vehicle could not be traced and the final report in respect of the same was submitted by police u/s 173 Cr.P.C. on 05.03.2020 in the court of Ms. Sakshi Saini, JMIC, Faridabad the the Hon’ble court of Ms. Sakshi Saini, JMIC, Faridabad had finally decided the  case on the same day on dated 05.03.2020.  After attaining information about the theft of the vehicle opposite party appointed a surveyor to conduct the spot survey and all necessary document alongwith key of the said vehicle were submitted by the complainant to the surveyor alongwith claim form and further some other related documents sent through also the courier by the complainant to the surveyor of the opposite parties.  The complainant had personally visited opposite party No.2 several times and requested him to settle the claim of the said vehicle but opposite parties turned a deaf ear to the genuine requests of the complainant. A letter dated 14.12.2020 received to the complainant  No.2, in this letter he again  seeking all the documents from the complainant for proceeding the claim, but the complainant had very much utter surprise that time, when had had provided all the documents two-three times to the opposite parties through physically in the office of opposite parties, through emails & courier also then why the opposite parties again seeking the document sand forthwith after ten days on 24.12.2020, the opposite parties issued further a final letter to the complainant and informed that the opposite parties were unable to proceed the claim due to non submission of the requisite claim documents by the complainant and finally the opposite parties cleared to the complainant that claim of the complainant had been repudiated as he was  entitled to any claim with respect to the theft of the said vehicle and the file for the said case had been closed. The complainant sent legal notice  dated14.01.2022 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                refund  the claim amount of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @24% from the date of till the date of realization.

 b)                pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite parties  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had malafidely filed the complaint for theft and had not provided proper details during the investigation of the surveyor and complainant’s claim was rejected for non supply of documents.  Opposite party No.1 had rightly refused the claim of the complainant as the complainant had not given proper documents during the investigation of the surveyor, which violates the terms and condition of the insurance policy. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others with the prayer to: a)  refund  the claim amount of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @24% from the date of till the date of realization.  b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Shri Raghvendra Singh, R/o H.No. 136, Gali No. 28, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad,  Ex.C-1 – Registration certificate, Ex.C-2 – Endorsement schedule of Motor – Goods Carrying vehicle, Ex.C-3 – Endorsement Schedule of Motor – Goods Carrying Vehicle cum debit note, Ex.C-4 – pollution certificate, Ex.C-5 – driving licence, Ex.C6 – RTI report for theft vehicle, Ex.C-7 – FIR, Ex.C-8 – Antim report, Ex.C-9 -  letter dated 09.11.2019 regarding supply of required documents,Ex.C-11(colly) –email, Ex.C-12 -  application to stolen the information of the vehicle No. HR-38-V-8188, Ex.C-13 – Parivahan document, Ex.C-14 -   repudiation letter. Ex.C-15 – legal notice. Ex.C-16 to 18 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-19 – Adhaar card.

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of  Ankita Bose D/o Shri Alok Bose, office at Universal Sompo General Insurance Company, Navi Mumbai.

6.                In this case on 31.10.2019 in the night at 10.00p.m. the complainant had parked the above said vehicle at outside area of the Whirlpool Company, Industrial Area, NIT, Faridabad and after parked the said vehicle, the complainant had gone to his native village. On 4.11.2019 at around 11:00a.m, when the complainant looked for his above said vehicle where the same was parked, he found that said vehicle was missing from parking spot, then the complainant searched the said vehicle in the area around the parking spot though himself but despite all the necessary efforts the said vehicle could not be found and finally the

complainant informed about theft of above said vehicle to police control room telephonically on 100 number from his mobile No. 9716449289, 9627815028 and local police station of Mujessar, Faridabad also on 04.11.2019 at 11:35a.m.  Opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.12.2020 on the ground of  submission of documents.

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties,  the Commission is of the opinion that it is major violation left the vehicle unmaned with security .  In the interest of justice,  the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.

8.                For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.

                   In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company.  In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:

a).               New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and

b).               National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal

Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 40%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the  insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner.  When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.

9.                Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion

that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto.  The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.    

IDV value of Eicher Canter @Truck                     :         Rs.10,00,000/-

Less Excess Clause                                                :         Rs.       1,000/-

                                                                             :         Rs.,9,99,000/-

Deduction 40% on non standard basis  on total     :    -   Rs.  3,99,600/-     

                   Total                                                  :         Rs. 5,99,400/-

10.              The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,99,400/-  alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and  Form 35.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.

Announced on:  02.05.2023                                         (Amit Arora)

                                                                                         President

                       District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                         (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                         (Indira Bhadana)

                Member