Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/245/2022

Gurmail Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/245/2022
Date of Institution	:	28/02/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2023

 

Gurmail Kaur wife of Sh. Gurcharan Singh r/o H.No.2555, Mariwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.147-148, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vishal Sharma, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Gurmail Kaur, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of a TATA ACE BS-III bearing registration No.CH-01-TA 6706 (hereinafter referred to as “subject tempo”) which was purchased by her vide invoice dated 25.3.2013 (Annexure C-1) to earn her and her family’s livelihood.  The subject tempo was being driven by her husband, Gurcharan Singh and the same was got insured by the complainant from the OP vide policy (Annexure C-2) valid w.e.f. 29.3.2019 to 28.3.2020 by paying premium of ₹17,449/- with insured declared value (IDV) of ₹1,50,000/-. On the evening of 10.12.2019, the subject tempo was parked outside the parking of house of the complainant at Manimajra, Chandigarh however, on the next day morning i.e. 11.12.2019, when the complainant came outside her house, she found the subject tempo stolen.  Immediately her husband reported the matter to the police at Police Station, Manimajra which resulted in recording GDD (Annexure C-3). Later on, FIR (Annexure C-4) was also registered by the police under Section 379 IPC.  Immediately, information was given to the OP about the theft of the subject tempo and surveyor was deputed by the OP who visited the spot and asked the complainant to submit certain documents and accordingly the complainant submitted all the documents (Annexure C-6 to C-11) to the investigator.  However, despite submission of all the documents, as asked by the investigator of the OP, it did not settle the genuine claim of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  As the subject tempo was stolen in the year 2019 and due to COVID-19 pandemic Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission had excluded the period w.e.f. 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 while computing limitation, the present consumer complaint was immediately filed by the complainant and the same is within time. 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 its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and also that there is delay in lodging FIR with the police after the alleged theft and that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle was left unattended without proper precautions. It is also alleged that the complainant was asked to submit certain documents to fulfil formalities, which were not fulfilled by her and the claim of the complainant was accordingly repudiated vide letter dated 26.2.2020.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

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, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was the registered owner of the subject tempo which was got insured by her vide subject policy (Annexure C-2) which was valid w.e.f. 29.3.2019 to 28.3.2020, with IDV of ₹1,50,000/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP is unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant  and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OP is justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the subject policy by not reporting the matter to the police immediately after the alleged theft and also by not taking necessary precautions for the safety of the subject tempo, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. Perusal of the copy of GDD (Annexure C-3) clearly indicates that the alleged theft had taken place on the intervening night of 10/11.12.2019 and on the very next day morning i.e. 11.12.2019 after finding that the subject tempo was not there in the parking area in front of the house of the complainant, her husband reported the matter to the police at 7:20 a.m., making it clear that there is no delay in reporting the occurrence by the complainant to the police.  Though it has come on record that the FIR (Annexure C-4) was registered by the police on 27.12.2019, but, it has been disclosed by the husband of the complainant in the GDD (Annexure C-3) that firstly he would make effort to find out the subject tempo at his own level and in case the same was not found, the matter will again be reported to the police. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid documents (Annexure C-3 & C-4), it is unsafe to hold that there was any delay on the part of the complainant/insured in reporting the matter to the police immediately after the occurrence or there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the subject policy.
   3. The consumer complaint of the complainant is also resisted by the OP on the ground that the complainant had not taken the required precautions for the safety of the subject tempo.  However, when it has come on record that the subject tempo was parked by the complainant just in front of her house in the parking area, and the OP has failed to lead any evidence in order to prove that the complainant had not taken required precautions to prevent loss/ damage to the subject tempo, it is unsafe to hold that the complainant has not taken the necessary precautions for preventing the loss of the subject tempo.
   4. The consumer complaint is further resisted by the OP on the ground that the complainant had not completed the formalities qua the submission of the documents as requested by the OP, but, again when it stands proved on record that the complainant has submitted all the documents (Annexure C-6 to C-11) as asked by the OP for the settlement of the claim, which fact has not been specifically rebutted by the OP, and despite of receipt of the same, OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16.6.2022 on some other ground, it is unsafe to hold that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents.
   5. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant had lodged a genuine claim qua the theft of her subject tempo, which was admittedly purchased by her to earn livelihood of her family, and the OP was unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and said act amounts to deficiency in service on its part and, therefore, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
   6. So far as the quantum of relief to be awarded to the complainant is concerned, as the subject policy itself shows the IDV of the subject tempo as ₹1,50,000/- and further as it stands proved on record that the same was stolen, it is safe to hold that the complainant is entitled for the aforesaid amount (less excess clause, if any) alongwith interest and compensation etc. for harassment suffered by her.
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 the IDV of ₹1,50,000/- (less excess clause, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.6.2022 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/08/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member