The complainant Beant Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against United India Insurance Company Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is registered owner of TATA LPS 4018 bearing registration No.PB-10BV-0353. He was plying this vehicle for earning livelihood of his family. The vehicle was purchased by him by taking the loan from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. and it is also lying hypothecated with opposite party No.3. It was validly insured with opposite parties vide insurance policy bearing No.200/4063/117/P106734563 w.e.f. 9.8.2017 to 8.8.2018 for IDV of Rs.6,77,000/- on payment of requisite premium. The complainant had engaged jagseer Singh S/o Nand Singh R/o Vill.Singpura, Distt. Sirsa (Haryana) as driver on the vehicle. jagseer Singh was also holding a legal and valid driving licence.
It is alleged that the vehicle was also having a valid permit for Punjab bearing No.6885/PB-03GV/2017 valid upto 7.5.2022. The vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 12/13.7.2018 as it was lying parked outside the residence/house of jagseer Singh, driver and it could not be traced despite best efforts by the complainant and driver jagseer Singh. On the basis of statement of the complainant, F.I.R No.156 dated 14.7.2018 was registered in P.S. Kalianwali, District Sirsa. At the time of theft of the vehicle, it was fully insured with opposite parties. On 16.7.2018, the complainant informed opposite parties about the theft of the vehicle by personally visiting the office of opposite party No.2 alongwith jagseer Singh driver and Bhola Singh. At that time, the officials of opposite party No.2 obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank printed forms and documents without reading over and explaining him the contents and assured him to notice their intimation of theft in their record as he was not conversant with the procedure of the intimation of the theft to opposite parties. They asked the complainant to come again after getting copy of the investigation documents from the police and other necessary/relevant documents i.e. copy of the R.C of the vehicle, driving licence of the driver, copy of the permit etc. and same were also supplied to opposite party No.2 in its office at Talwandi Sabo on 23.8.2018 in the presence of jagseer Singh driver. The officials again obtained the signatures of the complainant and jagseer Singh on some documents and assured the complainant that the claim has been lodged and opposite parties will inform him as soon as the claim is sanctioned, but thereafter they kept on putting the matter off on one or the other false pretext.
It is further alleged that the officials of the opposite parties started proclaiming that the claim cannot be settled till the completion of the investigation by the police or without getting non-tracable report from the police and acceptance of the same by the competent court and kept on the matter upto July 2019.
It is furher alleged that ultimately, opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant and supplied him copy of the repudiation letter dated 4.1.2019 alongwith other relevant documents vide covering letter dated 18.9.2019 and prior to 18.9.2019, no intimation was ever sent to him by them although they alleged that they had already repudiated the claim and allegedly sent letter dated 4.1.2019. No such letter dated 4.1.2019 was ever received by the complainant prior to 18.9.2019 and his claim has been repudiated on the following grounds :
i) Date of the theft of vehicle is 12-13.7.2018 whereas it is intimated to the office on 23.8.2018 after a gap of 40 days, which is violation of the policy condition No.l.
ii) As confirmed by the Sarpanch alongwith entire Panchayat members that the vehicle was sold to Sh.jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh-sons of Sh.Nand Singh 6/7 months back means no insurable interest of the insured.
iii) The vehicle was stolen from Haryana, but its permit is valid for Punjab only.
iv) Inspite of various reminders, the complainant is failed to submit the required information/documents/ items.
It is further alleged that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly and illegally repudiated by opposite parties and repudiation letter dated 4.1.2019 is totally wrong, illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative as against the rights of the complainant. The complainant is entitled the insurance claim for the following grounds:-
i) There is no delay in intimating opposite parties regarding the theft of the vehicle as the complainant alongwith jagseer Singh S/o Nand Singh and Bhola Singh visited the office of opposite party No.2 on 16.7.2018 and at that time, the officials of opposite party No.2 got signatures of the complainant on some papers on the pretext that they will notice their intimation of theft of their own as the complainant is very less educated and he was not conversant with the procedure of intimation of theft to opposite parties in writing. The theft of vehicle took place on 12/13/7.2018 and complainant alongwith jagseer Singh remained busy in searching the vehicle, but it could not be traced despite best efforts. As such, the complainant got F.I.R lodged on 14.7.2018 in P.S. Ralianwali, Distt. Sirsa and it took sufficient time in the police station on 14.7.2018. On 15.7.2018, there was holiday on account of Sunday and on 16.7.2018, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2 at Talwandi Sabo and supplied the documents to the officials of opposite parties on 23.8.2018 and at that time also, their officials obtained the signatures of the complainant and jagseer Singh on some documents/papers, but it does not amount that the intimation of theft was given on 23.8.2018. The F.I.R was got lodged on 14.7.2018. As such, it cannot be said that the story of theft is manipulated by the complainant and registration of F.I.R also amounts to intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle and veracity of the incident cannot be questioned. His claim cannot be repudiated merely on the ground of delay of 40 days in lodging the claim as the vehicle could not be traced till date. He has also referred the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Vs. Rahul Kadia in Law Finder Doc Id # 1011823, detail of which is not necessary at this stage.
It is further alleged that the story of the sale of the vehicle to jagseer Singh and Jasveer Singh sons of Nand Singh is totally false and concocted one and same is based upon mere surmises and conjectures. The F.I.R was got lodged by the complainant himself regarding the theft of the vehicle being owner of the vehicle and as per his statement, it is clearly mentioned that jagseer Singh was driver of the vehicle and during the course of the investigation of the case, jagseer Singh S/o Nand Singh also got recorded his statement that he was driver of the vehicle and no document has come on file regarding the sale of the vehicle by the complainant to jagseer Singh and Jasveer Singh, rather the vehicle is still registered in the name of the alleged confirmation by the Sarpanch and Member Panchayats of the village regarding the sale of vehicle by the complainant, has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and complainant has got very much insurable interest. Though the theft of the vehicle took-place at Vill.Singhpura, Distt. Sirsa, but the vehicle was not taken to Vill.Singhpura for any work of transportation etc., rather the driver jagseer Singh S/o Nand Singh is a permanent resident of Vill. Singhpura and he used to park the vehicle in open space outside his house with proper care and caution and village Singhpura is situated on the boundary/border of Punjab and Haryana and is hardly at a distance of 2/3 K.M. from the boundary of Vill. Behman Jassa Singh situated in the area of Punjab and at the time of theft, the vehicle was not parked there for any hire or reward purposes and was not on road, rather it was lying parked outside the residence of the driver. It was being plied only in the area of Punjab for which it was carrying a valid permit. The complainant has also referred some cases law in his complaint, detail of which is mentioned in the complaint.
It is further alleged that fraudulent intention and malpractice of opposite parties can also be judged from the fact that they have got only one key of the engine and cabin from the complainant alongwith original R.C and insurance cover note and stated that they will took another key i.e. engine and cabin from him when required by opposite parties. The factum of theft of the vehicle was also never disputed by opposite parties or their investigator. In respect of a beneficial legislation or beneficial contract, clause of the contract should be made in a manner so as to provide benefit to the party for whom the contract was made. The insurance company only get the benefit by charging the premium on the insurance amount whereas the insured is benefited by way of indemnification of the loss to the tune of insurance amount whereas the corresponding premium runs into not even 1/10 of the insurance amount. Thus the apparent object of the contract is for the benefit of the insured and not the other way.
It is also alleged that the complainant repeatedly approached opposite parties and requested them to honour his lawful claim and to make payment of the insurance claim, but to no effect. Due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial losses as well as loss of business.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to pay the total amount of insurance claim of Rs.6,77,000/- on account of theft of vehicle with immediate effect and pay damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs on account of loss of income for last more than one year and Rs.1 lakh on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation and pay cost of Rs.22,000/- in addition to interest @ 12% per annum or any other additional or alternative relief.
Upon notice, opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written version. In written version, opposite party No.1 and 2 have raised the legal submissions that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint. They require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under C.P. Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite parties. As such, he is not entitled to any relief. He has concealed the fact that the date of loss in this case has been intimated as intervening night of 12/13.7.2018 and F.I.R with the police authorities was lodged on 14.7.2018 whereas intimation to opposite parties is dated 23.8.2018, hence there is delay of 2 days in giving intimation to the police authorities and delay of about 41 days in giving intimation to opposite parties. As per conditions of Motor Insurance Policy wordings, immediate notice to the company and police is required regarding the theft/criminal act. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions Nos.1 and 5 of the policy. As such, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 4.1.2019. The law is settled by Hon'ble Apex Court that the terms and conditions of the policy are binding on both insurer and insured. In support of their version, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also referred some cases law, reference of which is not necessary at this stage.
Further legal objections are that the delay in intimation to insurer clearly debars the right of the insurer to investigate the matter and make efforts to recover the vehicle loss. The complainant did not cooperate and submit the required papers/documents despite letters dated 1.11.2018, 8.11.2018, 22.11.2018 and 3.12.2018 and finally, the claim was closed as 'No claim' vide letter dated 4.1.2019. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 deputed Mr.Satish Kumar Bansal, Advocate as investigator, he thoroughly investigated the claim of the complainant and found that the complainant has already sold the vehicle in question to jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh sons of Nand Singh about 6/7 months back as verified from Gurmeet Singh Sarpanch of village Singhpura Tehsil Kalanwali District Sirsa. As such, the complainant has no insurable interest of the insured. The vehicle was stolen from Haryana, but the permit was valid for Punjab only. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form and is liable to be dismissed. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
On merits, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in their legal objections as detailed above and denied all other averments of the complainant and also pleaded that in the alternative, if this Forum comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to any relief, only in that case, he may be directed to submit execute letter of subrogation, transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of opposite parties by submitting duplicate registration certificate and power of attorney etc. untraced report and other documents mentioned in the letters and reminders. In the end, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written version. In written version, opposite party No.3 has raised the legal objections that the vehicle is hypothecated under it and it has right/charge on the vehicle. The complainant has availed finance of Rs.7 lakhs from opposite party No.3 against loan agreement No.XSUBDA 00001971859 and at present a sum of Rs.8,54,835.19/- including interest and other expenses upto 21.1.2020 plus up-to-date interest is due against the complainant and while deciding the complaint, the interest of opposite party No.3 may kindly be protected and appropriate order protecting its interest may kindly be passed.
On merits, opposite party No.3 has reiterated its stand as taken in its legal objections as detailed above and pleaded that as per terms of the finance between the complainant and opposite party No.3, without clearing the finance of opposite party No.3, the complainant was not competent to further alienate the vehicle and financier has first charge on the insured vehicle.
In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit, (Ex.C1) photocopy of R.C, (Ex.C2); photocopy of insurance policy, (Ex.C3); Photocopy of D.L, (Ex.C4); Photocopy of route permit, (Ex.C5); Photocopy of FIR, (Ex.C6); Photocopy of letter, (Ex.C7); Registered letter received bak, (Ex.C8); affidavit of Harbans Singh @ Bhola Singh dated 22.10.2019, (Ex.C9) and affidavit of jagseer Singh dated 22.10.2019, (Ex.C10).
To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of application, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of permit, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopy of investigation report, (Ex.OP1/4); photocopies of statements, (Ex.OP1/5 and Ex.OP1/6); photocopies of letters, (Ex.OP1/7, Ex.OP1/9, Ex.OP1/11 to Ex.OP1/13); photocopies of postal receipt, (Ex.OP1/8 and Ex.OP1/10) and photocopy of policy, (Ex.OP1/14).
Opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Iqbal Singh, (Ex.OP3/1) and photocopy of loan account statement, (Ex.OP3/2).
We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the judgments referred and file carefully.
Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above.
We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
There is no dispute between the parties that vehicle TATA LPS 4018 bearing registration No.PB-10BV-0353 is insured with opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide insurance policy bearing No.200/4063/117/P106734563 w.e.f. 9.8.2017 to 8.8.2018 for IDV of Rs.6,77,000/-, (Ex.OP1/14). The said vehicle of the complainant was stolen away in the intervening night of 12/13.7.2018. The complainant intimated regarding the loss to police and opposite party Nos.1 and 2. His claim was repudiated by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide letter dated 4.1.2019, (Ex.C7).
The submission of learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant intimated the police and got F.I.R lodged on 14.7.2018 in P.S. Kalianwali, Distt. Sirsa. The complainant submitted all the documents as demanded by opposite parties with opposite party Nos.1 and 2, but they did not settle and pay his claim as his genuine claim.
The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the theft of vehicle in question took-place on the intervening night of 12/13.7.2018 whereas intimation regarding theft was given to them on 23.8.2018 after a gap of 40 days, which is violation of the policy condition No.l. The investigator appointed by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 confirmed from the Sarpanch alongwith entire Panchayat members that the vehicle was sold to jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh sons of Nand Singh 6/7 months back so there is no insurable interest of the insured. The vehicle was stolen from Haryana, but its permit is valid for Punjab only and despite sending various reminders, the complainant has failed to submit the required information/documents/ items. Hence, the claim is not payable.
Ex.OP-1/4 is the investigation report dated 15.10.2018 of investigator Sh.Satish Kumar Bansal deputed by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to investigate the genuineness of the claim of the complainant. Under the heading 'Observation and Remarks', the said investigator has mentioned that :
“Under the circumstances as mentioned above, I find that Tralla No.PB-10B-0353 Model 2006 was stolen by thieves in the intervening night of 12-13.7.2018 from the Plot opposite to the Gate of the house of jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh S/o Nand Singh R/o V. Singhpura Teh. Kalianwali (Sirsa).
That the original R.C and other papers of the Tralla are with the insured and Tralla was properly locked at the time of parking.
That the insured Beant Singh S/o Pappu Singh sold the abovesaid Tralla to jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh Sons of Nand Singh R/o V. Singhpura (Sirsa).
That the Tralla was stolen from Haryana, but the permit is valid for Punjab.
That Beant Singh had informed the insurance company about the theft of the Tralla on 23.8.2018 and policy expired on 8.8.2018 i.e. after the expiry of insurance policy about one and half month from the date of theft of the Tralla. Moreover Jasvir Singh is residing at V. Singhpura and jagseer Singh is residing at Taiwandi Sabo.
That the police of P.P. Sighpura (PS Kaliawali) neither made any arrest nor established any clue regarding the stolen Tralla and FIR is still under investigation.
That the insured Beant Singh violated the condition No.1 of Motor Insurance Policy i.e. after occurrence of the theft the insurer should be informed immediately. So, the claim may be dealt in accordance with insurance policy terms and conditions.”
Keeping in view the above said facts, its emerges that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated mainly on grounds that intimation was not given to insurance company immediately as per Condition No.1 of policy; the insured Beant Singh S/o Pappu Singh sold the abovesaid Tralla to jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh sons of Nand Singh R/o V. Singhpura (Sirsa); the Tralla was stolen from Haryana, but its permit was valid for Punjab and delaying in intimation to the insurance company.
A perusal of Condition No.1 of policy, (Ex.OP1/14) reveals that in case of theft or other criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. So, it is duty of the insured to give immediate notice to the police, which the insured/complainant in the case performed well.
There is no document placed on file to prove that the complainant has ever sold his Tralla to jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh sons of Nand Singh. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also not placed on file affidavit of Sarpanch or Panchayat members who are alleging that the complainant has sold his Tralla to jagseer Singh and Jasvir Singh. The complainant has placed on file photocopy of R.C, (Ex.C2), which proves that he is the registered owner of vehicle in question and moreover he has also tendered affidavit of Jagseer Singh, (Ex.C10) proving that Jagseer Singh was employed as driver on said vehicle.
There is also no document placed on file to prove that Tralla was taken to Vill.Singhpura, Distt. Sirsa for any work of transportation etc. where the theft of the vehicle took-place, rather the driver jagseer Singh S/o Nand Singh is a permanent resident of Vill. Singhpura, Distt. Sirsa (Haryana) and he used to park the vehicle in open space outside his house.
Moreover regarding the delay in claim intimation/documents submissions, I.R.D.A has issued circular. For the sake of convenience, the circular is being reproduced as under :-
“Ref No. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 Dated 20-09-2011
C I R C U L A R
To : All life insurers and non-life insurers.
Re : Delay in claim intimation/documents submission with respect to
i) All life insurance contracts and
ii) All Non-life individual and group insurance contracts.
The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.
The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.
The Insurers' decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.
Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution. It is also advised that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.
The insurers are advised to incorporate additional wordings in the policy documents, suitably enunciating insurers' stand to condone delay on merit for delayed claims where the delay is proved to be for reasons beyond the control of the insured."
From the perusal of aforesaid circular/letter, it is clear that delay in intimation should not prevent settlement of genuine claim.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr (2020 (1) Apex Court Judgements (SC) 266 has held :-
“Insurance Claim – Delay in intimating insurance company about occurence of theft no ground to deny claim.
Consumer Protection Act – Theft of vehicle – Delay in intimating to Insurance Company – Denial of Insurance claim – when insured lodged FIR immediately after theft of a vehicle occurred and when police after investigation have lodged a final report after vehicle was not traced and when surveyor/investigator appointed by insurance company found claim of theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny claim – Held lodging of FIR on same day theft occurred–Therefore, denial of claim set aside.”
The observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No.11 in the case Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC) are as under :-
“It is a common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the investigator. The condition regarding delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the 'Act'.”
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case title New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Usha Yadav, 2008(3) RCR Civil III has observed that:
“Cash rich insurance company indulging in luxury litigation to repudiate claim of the Insured-It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the claim.”
As discussed above in detail, this Commission is of the considered view that Insurance Company is not justified to reject the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner and the condition regarding delay etc. shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine and in this case opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have failed to honour the genuine claim of the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant without any reason. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question as per insurance policy with interest.
Admittedly, vehicle was financed by opposite party No.3. Therefore, opposite party No.3 will be entitled to receive outstanding amount, if any, out of the awarded amount and remaining amount will be payable to the complainant.
In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,77,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and Seventy Seven Thousand only) to the complainant being the IDV of vehicle with interest @8% p.a. w.e.f. 4.1.2019 (date of repudiation of the claim) till realization.
The complainant is directed to sign the documents, if any, required by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and complete the other formalities, if any, required by law for release of claim .
The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced:-
27-05-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
