(Dated 14/03/2017)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. Complainant Ramendra Singh Malkitsingh Juneja has filed this consumer complaint against the opposite party ( for short OP)/Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and sought for directions to the opposite party to pay the complainant the Insured Declared Value ( for short IDV)  of the insured vehicle with interest, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.
2. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in the complaint are as under.

The complainant is the owner of  Volvo Tipper Vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38, R6555. He insured the said vehicle under a comprehensive insurance policy with the OP/insurance company for an IDV of Rs. 34,00,000/-. The insurance was valid for the period from 9/2/2011 to 8/2/2012. It is the contention of the complainant that during the subsistence of the policy period, the aforesaid insured vehicle was stolen, when it was parked in front of office of Mr. Balbir Singh Renu at Kamgar Nagar Square, near Maruti Showroom on 9/11/2011 at around 7.00 pm. In the morning of 10/11/2011, an employee of Balbirsingh went to see the vehicle  which was to be painted. He however did not find the vehicle  at the spot. Therefore he immediately reported the matter to Mr. Balbirsingh, his employer. They could not find the said vehicle in spite of detailed search. The owner of the vehicle immediately reported to the police station, Jaripatka where first information report (FIR) were  FIR was recorded. The claim was also registered with the OP vide claim No. 69538. The OP deputed their investigator Mr. Rajan to investigate into the matter. The investigator visited the office of Dalbirsingh on 13/11/2011 where  he was handed over the ignition key and key of the door lock. The owner of the vehicle handed over all the original documents of the vehicle along with copy of FIR of the Jaripatka Police Station, claim form, letter of intimation to RTO, Nagpur regarding theft, statement of driver etc. on 14/11/2011. On 18/11/2011, the complainant handed over, the RC book of the vehicle duly endorsed by Nagpur RTO about the theft. The complainant received the ‘A’ summery report  from concerned police on 13/7/2012 which was immediately handed over to the OP. Thus, it is the contention of the complainant that he submitted all the required documents  to the OP and therefore he requested the OP to settle his claim. The OP failed to settle the claim even after lapse of 3 to 4 months from the date of the incident. It is the contention of the complainant that OP failed to settle the insurance claim within the stipulated period as laid down by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (for short IRDA) . It is submitted that as per IRDA rules, the claim  is to be settled within one month from the submission  and receipt of documents. The insurer is liable to pay  2 percent interest above the prevailent  bank rate on the  claim amount if  the claim  is  allowed beyond  the delay period of 30 days. As the OP / insurance company failed to settle the claim, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint and sought for directions  to the OP to pay the IDV of 34,00,000/-  to the complainant with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of proceedings and  interest as per IRDA regulations.

3. The complainant  filed copy of the insurance policy, letter of intimation to RTO, Nagpur regarding theft, submission of documents by complainant to the investigator, claim form,  ‘A’ summary final report to the OP, copy of the FIR No. 359 of 11 .
4. Notice after admission of the complaint was issued to the OP on 25/02/2013. The Op Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. filed written version to the complaint.  The OP has denied all  the allegations of the complainant. The OP has specifically submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by letter dated 8/11/2012. The OP has further submitted that the documents furnished to it by the complainant about the insured vehicle  were fake and fabricated. During the investigation when the OP checked the ownership of the insured vehicle, it came to its notice that the vehicle bearing No. HR-38/R6555 which was alleged to be the truck owned by the complainant was actually owned by one Mr. Chandarvati Devi of Faridabad and the same is still in her possession.. She had purchased the said vehicle from Mrs. Kavita Malhotra. The vehicle owned by Chandravati Devi bearing registration No. HR-38/R6555 is having the engine No. 60B62453861 and chasis No. 412091 BT2104617 and the year of manufacture is 2006, while the vehicle alleged to be owned by the complainant bearing No. HR-38/R6555 was having Engine No. 016395A2A and chasis No. 48848769K7 and the year of manufacture is 2004. The OP therefore prayed for dismissal of complaint as the complainant had not approached this Commission with clean hands.  The OP has filed the copies  of the letters dated 27/01/2012, 7/2/2012, 14/02/2012 and 29/2/2012, addressed to the complainant and  manufacturer of the truck, by the OP. The OP has also filed letter of repudiation dated 8/11/2012, copies of the documents about the registration particulars, certificate of registration, statements of neighbors etc.
5. We heard advocate Mr. Kaushik Mandal for the complainant finally. Counsel for the OP remained absent. We also perused the written noties of arguments  filed by the complainant. We further perused complaint, written version  of OP and documents filed on record by both the parties.
6. Following issues arise for our consideration. We record our findings against them for the reasons given next there under.

1. Whether the complainant proves that the  vehicle owned by him and insured with OP for sum assured of Rs. 34,00,000/- has been stolen away during period of policy?........................ Affirmative
2. Whether the OP has rendered deficient service and adopted unfair trade practice by repudiating claim of complainant? .......................   Affirmative

7. The  copy of the Certificate Cum Policy Scheduled reflects the name of complainant as owner of insured vehicle . The insured vehicle is a Volvo Tipper bearing Registration No. HR-38/R6555, Engine No. 016395A2A and Chasis No. 48848769K7 and year of manufacture is 2004. The IDV for the vehicle is Rs. 34,00,000/- The aforesaid details of the vehicle are consistently mentioned in the letter dated 14/11/2011 addressed to the registering authority and also in letter of information given to District Transport office, Nagpur informing about the theft of vehicle and in  the motor insurance claim form dated 14/11/2011, submitted by complainant to OP. The same description is also given in the  report dated 14/11/2011 addressed to the Station House  Officer, Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur (MH) by complainant in the FIR and  Copy of the ‘A’ summary report submitted by police station, Jaripatka to  the court of JMFC after due investigation. The only inference that can be drawn from perusal of aforesaid documents is that the Volvo Tipper bearing registration No. HR-38/R6555 of engine No. 016395A2A and Chasis No. 48848769K7 manufactured in the year 2004 is owned by complainant Ramendar Singh and it was  insured with the OP Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. for an IDV of the vehicle at Rs. 34,00,000/- and it has been stolen away during period of policy from his possession.  For the foregoing reason, we record  finding to issue No. 1 in the affirmative.
8. The second issue before us is whether the OP has rendered deficiency in service or adopted unfair trade practice by repudiating  the insurance claim of the complainant. We perused the letter dated 8/11/2012, addressed to the complainant by the OP repudiating the insurance claim. The said letter records the reason for repudiation as ………………………………. “Based on the verification of documents submitted by you, it has been observed that copy of documents related to your vehicle, produced by you are fake and fabricated and submitted by you to build up your claim and get benefited from Insurance Policy.”
9. The OP  in the written version filed to the complaint has also specifically submitted that the documents related to the insurance vehicle furnished by complainant were fake and fabricated. The OP has  filed two documents namely a letter  dated 2/2/2012 written by one Ramal Jivan Yadav resident of House No. 2082, Neharu Colony, NIT, Faridabad  which mentions that Tata Truck bearing registration No. HR-38/R65555 was purchased from Shri Vijay Malhotra and  the said truck was in the name of Kavita Malhotra wife of Vijay Malhotra and was purchased in the name of Chandravati Devi Yadav. Another document on which the OP has relied is a letter issued by Vijay Malhotra, proprietor of Malik Logistic  which confirms the purchase of vehicle bearing No. HR-38/R6555, Tata 16137C in the name of Mrs. Kavita Malhotra in the year 2006. The said truck was sold to Chandravati Devi in April 2010.
10. The aforesaid documents on the basis of which OP has tried to prove that the documents submitted by the complainant are fake and fabricated. They do not give the details of engine number or chasis number of the vehicle. No document of RTO is produced by OP to prove that documents of registration produced by complainant are fake and fabricated.   By no stretch of imagination can it be inferred that the claim of the complainant is not genuine  or is based on fake and fabricated documents. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, it cannot be presumed that documents furnished by complainant are fake and fabricated and documents relied on by OP are genuine documents.   The inference however can be drawn otherwise against the OP. The OP has also not sought  for any opinion of handwriting expert to prove the falsity of documents filed by the complainant.  For the aforesaid reason, we are of the reasoned view that the OP/Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd has not only rendered deficient service to complainant but it has also adopted unfair trade practice by repudiating the claim of the complainant by assigning reason which is devoid of any cogent  documentary proof. It is also not the case of OP that the IDV of the vehicle is subject to depreciation.  Therefore we have no hesitation to allow  the insurance claim as per the IDV recorded in the insurance policy. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The OP Shriram Insurance Company to pay  the complainant Rs. 34,00,000/- as per the IDV of the vehicle as recorded in the policy document.
3. The OP to pay the aforesaid  amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- with 9 percent per annum interest from the date of repudiation i.e. from 8/11/2012 till  its   realization by the complainant.
4. The OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards cost of proceedings.   
5. No order as to cost.
6. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.