District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.214/2021.
Date of Institution: 08.04.2021.
Date of Order: 14.10.2022.
Pramod Acharya S/o Shri Ram Vinod Acharya R/o H.No. 130, Gali No.3, Heera Mandir Road, New Baselwa Colony, Old Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd., First floor, SCF-2, Sector-35, Ashoka Enclave-1, Faridabad through its Manager/Principle Officer.
2. Universal Sampo General Insurance company Ltd., Office NO. 130,, First floor, Ackruti Star, MIDC, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400 093 through its Manager/Principle Officer.
…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. Satish Acharya, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Nitish Kumar counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was
having a truck bearing registration NO. HR 38R-2785 of make Eicher 1110, Model 2011, Chassis No. MC233HRCOBAO49197 and engine NO. E483CDBA518995 registered in Regional Transport Authority Faridabad, Haryana in name of complainant. The complainant got above said vehicle bearing NO. HR-38R-2785 insured from opposite parties company vide policy NO. 2374/58831354/00/000 for period of 26.08.2018 to 25./08.2019. The above said vehicle bearing NO. HR 38R 2785 was financed by complainant from IndusInd Bank and now after re-payment of entire loan an NOC had been obtained by complainant form bank on 13.01.2021. On 07.08.2019 in the evening at 04.00p.m driver of the complainant namely Naresh parked the above said vehicle bearing NO. HR38 R 2785 near telephone exchange, DLF Industrial Area, 14/1, Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Sector-31, Faridabad and keys of the said vehicle were hand over by the driver to the complainant. Next morning when driver went back to the place where the vehicle was parked, he found that said vehicle was missing from parking spot and informed complainant about the same after which complainant and his driver searched the vehicle in the area around the parking spot but despite all the vehicles the said vehicle could not be found and finally complainant informed about theft of above said vehicle to police control room telephonically on 100 from his mobile No. 9818569778 and local police station of Sector-31, Faridabad also on 08.08.2019 at 10:49a.m. Te said fact about the theft of the above mentioned vehicle was also informed by complainant to opposite parties without any delay on 08.09.2019. after due verification of spot police lodged FIR No. 374 dated 11.08.2019 u/s 379 IPC in police station, Sector-31, Faridabad against unknown person regarding the theft of the abovementioned 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 same was submitted by police u/s 173 Cr.P.C. on 08.11.2019 in the court of Ms. Seema, JMIC, Faridabad and next date in the said case had been finally decided on 09.03.2021. After attaining information about the theft of the vehicle opposite parties appointed a surveyor to conduct the spot survey and all necessary documents alongwith both the keys of the said vehicle were submitted by the complainant to the surveyor alongwith claim form.
Since then the complainant had been doing regular follow ups with him about his claim and informing him that the abovementioned truck bearing NO. HR-38R-2785 was financed by the complainant from IndusInd Bank and he had to pay the instalments of the said loan without being able to use the said vehicle, but no satisfactory response about the delay in claim as provided by him to the complainant. The complainant had personally visited opposite party No.1 several times and requested him to settle the claim of the complainant as he had to repay the loan of the said vehicle but opposite parties offered a deaf year to the genuine requests of the complainant. Thereafter vide letter dated 15.12.2019 received to complainant on 05.03.2021 via whatsapp from one of his agent namely Shri Purushottam from mobile No. 9953884348, and Gaganpreet Singh behalf of opposite parties email also on 04.03.2021 it was informed to complainant that claim of the complainant had been repudiated as he was not entitled to any claim with respect to the theft of the said vehicle and file of the said case had been closed. The complainant sent legal notice dated 17.03.2021 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 of claim amount of Rs.5,75,000/- alognwith interest @ 24% from the date of till the date of realization
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) any other relief, which thyis Hon’ble commission deems fit and proper also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
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 informed about the theft to the opposite party by delay of one day and the FIR was lodged after 3 days of the theft. It was submitted that to the extent that an FIR bearing No. 374 dated11.08.2019 was lodged against unknown persons and final
report in respect of the same was submitted u/s 173 of Cr.P.C on 08.22.3029 in the court of Ms. Seema, JMIC, Faridabad court and the case had been finally decided on 09.03.2021. It was submitted that the complainant had delayed in informing the police by 3 days. It was admitted that the opposite party appointed a surveyor to conduct spot survey and documents and both the keys of the vehicle were handed over to the surveyor alongwith the claim. It was submitted that upon inquiry it was found that one key was of Eicher make which was written ‘Sapan’ on the key and the second key was also Eicher make which was abruptly filed by the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant had lost the original keys of the vehicle and thus shows that the complainant had not taken due care to present the theft of the vehicle and thus, amounts to violation of policy condition No.4 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 Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) Refund of claim amount of Rs.5,75,000/- alognwith interest @ 24% from the date of till the date of realization. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) any other relief, which this Hon’ble commission deems fit and proper also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Pramod Acharya, Annx.C1 – insurance policy, Annx.C-2 –Form 38, Annx.C-3 – repudiation letter dated 15.12.2019,, Annx.C-4 – RC,, Annx.,C-5 – Form 38,, Annx.C-6 – Vehicle particulars (for internal use), Annx.C-8 – FIR,, Annx.C-9 – legal notice,, Annx.C-10 – postal receipt,, Annx. C-11 – untraced report, Annx.C-12 –
Untraced report, Annx.C-13 – emails,, Annx. C-14 – RTA letter dated 7.10.2019,, Annx. C-15 – Part A, Annx.C-16 – part B,, Annx.C-17 – Authorization certificate of N.P.(Goods),, Annx. C-19 – photocopy of keys,, Annx.C-19 – pollution certificate,, Annx. C-20 – statement of account, Annx.C-21 – No objection certificate for lien endorsement removal.
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 Prashant V Shukla, office at Unit 601 & 602, Reliable Tech park, Airoli.
6. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got above said vehicle bearing No. HR-38R-2785 insured from opposite parties company vide policy No. 2374/58831354/00/000 for period of 26.08.2018 to 25./08.2019. On 07.08.2019 in the evening at 04.00p.m driver of the complainant namely Naresh parked the above said vehicle bearing NO. HR38 R 2785 near telephone exchange, DLF Industrial Area, 14/1, Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Sector-31, Faridabad and keys of the said vehicle were hand over by the driver to the complainant. Next morning when driver went back to the place where the vehicle was parked, he found that said vehicle was missing from parking spot and informed complainant about the same after which complainant and his driver searched the vehicle in the area around the parking spot but despite all the vehicles the said vehicle could not be found and finally complainant informed about theft of above said vehicle to police control room telephonically on 100 from his mobile No. 9818569778 and local police station of Sector-31, Faridabad also on 08.08.2019 at 10:49a.m. The theft of the above mentioned vehicle was also informed by complainant to opposite parties without any delay on 08.09.2019. After due verification of spot police lodged FIR No. 374 dated 11.08.2019 u/s 379 IPC in police station, Sector-31, Faridabad against unknown person regarding the theft of the abovementioned vehicle.
Letter dated 15.12.2019 received to complainant on 05.03.2021 via whatsapp from one of his agent namely Shri Purushottam from mobile No. 9953884348, and Gaganpreet Singh behalf of opposite parties email also on 04.03.2021 it was informed to complainant that claim of the complainant had been repudiated as he was not entitled to any claim with respect to the theft of the said vehicle and file of the said case had been closed.
On the other hand, counsel for opposite party argued that the complainant had lost the original keys of the vehicle and thus shows that the complainant had not taken due care to present the theft of the vehicle and thus, amounts to violation of policy condition No.4 of the insurance policy.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that in case of minor violations, the claim be settled on non standard basis. In this case we are fortified by the judgement of the apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010 wherein it was held that in case of minor violations, claim cannot be denied in toto.
8. 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 vehicle : Rs.5,75,000/-
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000/-
: Rs. 5,74,000/-
Deduction of 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 1,43,500/-
Total : Rs. 4,31,500/-
9. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.4,31,500/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till its realization along with Rs. 2200/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and also to pay Rs. 2200/- as
litigation charges 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 35A. 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: 14.10.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
