Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that the complainant is owner of vehicle Honda Activa No.PB-29-AB-5473. Complainant has insured the said vehicle with opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide policy no.233904/31/2019/3115 for period from 14.09.2018 to 13.09.2023. The complainant has hypothecated the said vehicle with Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. Moga and used to deposit loan installments and he has deposited the last installment on 14.08.2020. The said vehicle has been stolen and matter was lodged with P.S. City, Moga  vide FIR no.153 dated 24.06.2019 u/s 379 IPC and due information was given to opposite party. The police has registered the said case and due investigation was conducted by concerned police, but the vehicle was not raced so the police has filed untraceable report u/s 173 Cr.P.C in the court. The said report bears the signature of SHO, P.S. City Moga. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite party alongwith FIR and requested the opposite party to make the claim of insured vehicle, but the opposite party rejected the claim without any rhyme or reason. The opposite parties was asked many a times to pay amount of claim, but they have refused to do so. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with regard to policy no.233904/31/2019/3115 in respect of vehicle Activa no.PB-29-AB-5473 alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of claim till its realization. 

b)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant.

c)       To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

d)      And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.       

2.       Upon notice Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint filed by the complainant is premature. No cause of action arose to the complainant against the opposite parties as the matter regarding the claim is still pending and the opposite party has not repudiated the claim. The complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct. There if no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. He has concealed, suppressed and misstated the material facts from this Commission. True facts are that the complainant has got insured his Honda Activa from the opposite party vide policy no.233904/31/2019/3115 for the period 14.09.2018 to 13.09.2019. The Honda Activa of the complainant got stolen on 24.06.2019 and the opposite party immediately appointed Zora Singh Deol, Investigator to investigate the claim. The investigator submitted its report on 14.08.2019. Thereafter the opposite parties vide letters dated 24.06.2020, 04.08.2020, 17.09.2020 and 15.01.2021 requested the complainant to submit (i) RC book of the vehicle in original, ii) No Objections Certificate-cum-loan clearance certificate from the financier, if any, iii) Copy or untraceable report from police issued by concerned court under section 173 CrPC showing that your vehicle not traced and police closed the case as untraced, iv) Latest N.C.R.B Report showing current status of vehicle, v) Two Keys of the vehicle. The complainant has not submitted the documents with the opposite parties, rather filed the complaint.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Senior Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that he is owner of vehicle Honda Activa No.PB-29-AB-5473. Complainant has insured the said vehicle with opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide policy no.233904/31/2019/3115 for period from 14.09.2018 to 13.09.2023. The complainant has hypothecated the said vehicle with Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. Moga and used to deposit loan installments and he has deposited the last installment on 14.08.2020. The said vehicle has been stolen and matter was lodged with P.S. City, Moga  vide FIR no.153 dated 24.06.2019 u/s 379 IPC and due information was given to opposite party. The police has registered the said case and due investigation was conducted by concerned police, but the vehicle was not traced so the police has filed untraceable report u/s 173 Cr.P.C in the court. The said report bears the signature of SHO, P.S. City Moga. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite party alongwith FIR and requested the opposite party to make the claim of insured vehicle, but the opposite party rejected the claim without any rhyme or reason. The opposite parties was asked many a times to pay amount of claim, but they have refused to do so. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7.       On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that complainant has concealed, suppressed and misstated the material facts from this Commission. In fact the complainant got insured his Honda Activa from the opposite party vide policy no.233904/31/2019/3115 for the period 14.09.2018 to 13.09.2019. The Honda Activa of the complainant got stolen on 24.06.2019 and the opposite party immediately appointed Zora Singh Deol, Investigator to investigate the claim. The investigator submitted its report on 14.08.2019. Thereafter the opposite parties vide letters dated 24.06.2020, 04.08.2020, 17.09.2020 and 15.01.2021 requested the complainant to submit (i) RC book of the vehicle in original, ii) No Objections Certificate-cum-loan clearance certificate from the financier, if any, iii) Copy or untraceable report from police issued by concerned court under section 173 CrPC showing that your vehicle not traced and police closed the case as untraced, iv) Latest N.C.R.B Report showing current status of vehicle, v) Two Keys of the vehicle. The complainant has not submitted the documents with the opposite parties, rather filed the complaint.

8.       It is not disputed that the  Honda Activa No.PB-29-AB-5473 of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties, vide policy no.233904/31/2019/3115 for period from 14.09.2018 to 13.09.2023. It is also not disputed that during the policy period, said Honda Activa was stolen. In this regard, FIR No. 153 dated 24.06.2019 was lodged with P.S. City Moga. Inspite of the best efforts by the police, the insured vehicle could not be traced, so the police has filed untraceable report in the Court. The only ground for the non settlement of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Parties is that vide letters dated 24.06.2020, 04.08.2020, 17.09.2020 and 15.01.2021 requested the complainant to submit (i) RC book of the vehicle in original, ii) No Objections Certificate-cum-loan clearance certificate from the financier, if any, iii) Copy or untraceable report from police issued by concerned court under section 173 CrPC showing that your vehicle not traced and police closed the case as untraced, iv) Latest N.C.R.B Report showing current status of vehicle, v) Two Keys of the vehicle. The complainant has not submitted the documents with the opposite parties, rather filed the complaint  and for want of required documents, the claim could not be settled till now.

9.     The first plea of the Opposite Party is that the complainant has not furnished the required documents for the settlement of the claim of the complainant, but we do not agree with contention of the Opposite Party because these required documents are already placed on record by the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint i.e.  copy of statement of account of Shiram City Union Finance Ltd. Ex.C4, copy of untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C Ex.C6, Copy of RC C7, copy of NCRB report Ex.C8 and two keys of the vehicle in question Ex.C9.  In this regard,  it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case  M/s.Delkon (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited III(1993) CPJ 313 (NC) that the complainant can not be denied his claim on the ground that final report was not forthcoming. It was further held that when complainant had lodged FIR but has not received the final report from the police, there is no contractual obligation under the policy of insurance for the insured to produce final investigation report from the police.

10.     In such a situation the repudiation made by the Opposite Party-Insurance Company regarding genuine claim of the complainant have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pasters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.  The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.

11.     In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party-Insurance Company have wrongly and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant. Resultantly, the complaint is partly allowed. Since as per the policy Ex.C3 the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.50,885/- so at the most the complainant can claim the IDV value of the vehicle. Hence, the Opposite Parties jointly and severally are directed to pay IDV of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.50,885/- (Rupees Fifty thousand eight hundred eighty five only) within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney, indemnity bond and other required documents for transfer of Registration certificate  of the vehicle in question, NOC from the financiers of the vehicle in question if any, in favour of the Opposite Party by the complainant, failing which, opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 03.09.2020 till its realization.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

12.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.