Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/521/2023

SUBHASH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

03 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/521/2023
Date of Institution	:	2.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	03/07/2024

 

Subhash Kumar s/o Late Sh. Satpal, aged about 42 years, resident of House No.2516-C, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.

Complainant

VERSUS

 

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 9, 1st Floor Above Central Bank of India, Sector 10, Panchkula, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

...Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP/OPs).The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the complainant is registered owner  of maruti ECO 07 bearing registration No. CH-01-BG-7560 (hereinafter to be referred as subject car) which was got insured by the complainant from OP vide insurance policy  Annexure C-2  valid w.e.f. 21.3.2023 to 20.3.2024, by paying premium amount of ₹9267/-.  On 12.4.2023, the subject car was stolen by some unknown person in Ram Darbar, Chandigarh. Immediately Online Intimation qua the  theft of the subject vehicle  was given to Chandigarh police.  The copy of  Integrated Management System dated 12.4.2023 is annexed as Annexure C-3. In pursuance to the said information  FIR No.261 dated 12.4.2023 at police station sector 31, chandigarh  was lodged.  The complainant has also given intimation to the OP regarding the alleged theft of the subject car and under the instructions of the OP the complainant submitted all the required documents to the investigator appointed by the OP.  It is alleged that instead of paying genuine claim of the complainant the investigator deputed by the OP with malafide intention issued letter dated 20.7.2023 Annexure C-5,  asked the complainant to submit certain documents and information  and the complainant in order to fulfill the requirement of the OP submitted letter Annexure C-6 dated 3.8.2023   and clarified all the queries of the investigator and provided the documents available with the complainant with the request to do the needful  and alongwith the said letter the complainant also annexed  order/ non-traceable report Annexure C-7 dated 1.8.2023  for onwards submission  to the investigator. Despite of receiving all the documents, when the OP failed to settle the claim of the complainant he sent a legal notice Annexure C-8 to the OP but again the OP instead of settling the claim of the complainant had asked the complainant to submit documents by sending letter Annexure C-10 dated 14.9.2023 and in this manner knowing fully well that the complainant had submitted all the requisite documents available with him as asked by the OP, the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of fact. However, it is admitted that the complainant had taken the subject policy Annexure R-1 from the answering OP  and the same was valid w.e.f. 21.3.2023 to 20.3.2024.  It is further admitted that the complainant intimated the OP about the theft of the subject car and on receiving information an investigator  was deputed by the OP who asked the complainant to submit various documents i.e. certified copy of untraced report, calls details, copy of letter to RTO, RC verification report, Purchase invoice, fast tag etc.  and he was repeatedly asked to submit the aforesaid documents but the same were not submitted by the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant issued legal notice to the OP and the same was replied by the OP. On merits it is further alleged that as the complainant has not submitted requisite documents as asked by the investigator the claim of the complainant was not settled. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject vehicle as is also evident from  Annexure C-1 the copy of RC and the subject vehicle was got insured by the complainant from the OP vide policy Annexure C-2 which was valid w.e.f. 21.3.2023 to 20.3.2024  and the subject vehicle was stolen from Ramdarbar, Chandigarh on 12.4.2023 and the matter was immediately reported by the complainant to the police and in pursuance of that FIR was registered as is also evident from  Annexure C-3 and C-4 and the untraced report submitted by the police  and the  same was accepted by the concerned magistrate as is also evident from copy of order Annexure C-7 dated 1.8.2023   and till date the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the OP, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OP  is unjustified in not settling the claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for  as is the case of the complainant or if the OP was justified in not settling the claim of the  complainant for non submission of requisite documents by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-5 letter dated 20.7.2023 sent by Investigator Lakshya Kumar appointed by the OP indicates that the said investigator asked the complainant to submit certified copies of final untrace report, call details of 112, copy of letter to RTO etc.
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-6 letter dated 3.8.2023 sent by the complainant to the investigator  further indicates that the complainant had sent the documents to the investigator   available with him. Annexure C-7   is the copy of order dated 1.8.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chandigarh  which indicates that the untraced report submitted by the police was accepted by the court. Perusal of  Annexure C-8 the legal notice indicates that the complainant requested the OP to settle his claim. Annexure C-9  is the copy of No Objection Certificate issued by the financer indicating that nothing was due to the financer with respect to the loan sanctioned by the financer qua the subject car. Annexure C-10  is the copy of letter sent by the OP vide which it again asked the complainant to submit certain documents. Annexure C-11 is the copy of reply to the legal notice further indicates that the OP again asked the complainant to submit certain documents.
   4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that as it stands proved on record that despite of the fact that the required documents for the settlement of the claim of the subject  car has already been submitted by the complainant with the OP, the  genuine claim of the complainant was not settled by the OP on the ground that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents and as such the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency  in service.
   5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the OP contended that as it stands proved on record that the complainant has been asked repeatedly by the OP to submit the requisite  documents for the settlement of the claim, which the complainant has failed to submit, and thus the claim of the complainant was not processed and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
   6. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for OP as it stands proved  from the reply to the legal notice Annexure C-11  and letter  Annexure C-10  that the OP has been asking the complainant to submit call details of 112, copy of letter to RTO  intimating about the theft , RC verification report, purchase invoice  fast tag reports,  income tax return of last three years and the purpose for which the vehicle was used, to our mind  the complainant was not required to submit the same again and again when it has come on record that the untraced report which has already been accepted by the learned Magistrate vide order Annexure C-7 dated 1.8.2023  has already been submitted with the OP  and the rest of the documents such as purchase invoice, fast tag report are not relevant for the purpose of determination of claim of the stolen car as after purchasing the subject car the same was got registered by the complainant and only after that the OP had issued the subject policy Annexure C-2 to the complainant.
   7. So far as the verification of RC  and copy of letter to RTO  and other documents  asked by the OP are concerned, the same could have been verified by the investigator deputed by the OP  or by the surveyor which has not been done by the OP  in the present case. Further when it  is admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject vehicle which was got insured with the OP  by the complainant and immediately after theft of the subject car the complainant reported the matter to the police, in  pursuance to which FIR  was lodged as is evident from Annexure C-3 and C-4 and intimation of theft was also given to the OP and untraced report with respect of the subject car has already been accepted by the leaned magistrate vide order Annexure C-7 dated 1.8.2023, to our mind by not settling the genuine claim of the complainant till date itself amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP . Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
   8. So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, it is evident from policy Annexure R-1 that the IDV of the subject car is ₹1,37,916/- and in our opinion the complainant is entitled for the same after compulsory deduction of ₹1000/-. Thus the complainant is entitled for ₹1,37,916/- minus ₹1000/- = ₹1,36,916/-  alongwith compensation.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹₹1,36,916/-  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr. No. (i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 03/07/2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member