Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 28
Instituted on : 13.01.2023
Decided on : 29.03.2024
Sanjiv age 24 years s/o Sh. Balraj R/o VPO Mungan, Distt. Rohtak..
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Having its office at 2nd floor Jawahar Market, D-Park, Rohtak, Haryana through its Manager.
- United India Insurance co. Ltd. Having its office at Service hub, 8th floor, Kanchenjunga BNLDG, 18, National Insurance Company Limited, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak through its Manager/Incharge.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Having its office#19, Nungambakkam high road 4th lane, Chennai-600034 through its manager.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Smt.Ruchi Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he insured his vehicle motorcycle bearing no.HR-12AD2176 from the opposite party for the period 04.08.2021 to 03.08.2022 vide policy no.34020131210160016321 and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.37065/-. On 04.01.2021 the abovementioned vehicle was stolen from Mini Secretariat Gurugram. On the same day intimation was given to dial no.112 and intimation was also given to concerned police, Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram regarding the theft of the said vehicle. Police could not trace out the vehicle and registered the FIR No.0506 dated 11.08.2021. The intimation was also given to the official of the opposite party and after getting the copy of FIR intimation was again given to the opposite party. They registered the claim and appointed the investigator who visited the spot and got verified the matter. Complainant had submitted all the required documents and completed all the required formalities as required by the respondents. Complainant visited the office of opposite parties and requested the respondents to disburse the claim. But the respondents did not disburse the theft claim amount and has repudiated the claim of the complainant.The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.37065/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of theft of vehicle till the date of final payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- as compensation for harassing the complainant, deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite partiesin their reply has submitted that vehicle in question was stolen on 04.08.2021 and on receiving the information of theft, opposite party appointed the investigator M/s Allied Vehicle Service and it came to knowledge that story regarding the theft of vehicle on 04.08.2021 is false and fabricated story. In fact the vehicle in question was stolen on 29.07.2021 and in this regard, the complainant made a call on emergency number/police number 112 on 29.07.2021. The complainant got the insurance of theft vehicle on 04.08.2021 that too on the higher insured declared value. The vehicle in question was previously insured from Universal Sompo General Insurance company for the period from 27.07.2020 to 26.07.2021 for the IDV of Rs.29644/- and later complainant got the vehicle insured without getting pre-inspection for declared value of Rs.37065/-. The value of the vehicle depreciates with the passage of time whereas the complainant just to get the false enrichment get the vehicle insured on higher IDV. Thus, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed his evidence on dated 20.06.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite partieshas tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A&Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and closed his evidence on 12.03.2024.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per complainant his vehicle has been stolen on 04.08.2021 from the Mini Secretariat Gurugram and regarding this incident immediate information was given on PCR no.112 and also given information to concerned police station P.S. Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram. Regarding this fact FIR No.506 u/s 379 was got registered on dated 11.08.2021 in P.S.Shivaji Nagar Gurugram. Claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 21.12.2022 on the grounds that : 1) two calls made to Police authorities one before theft date and another after theft date., 2) Theft occurred i.e. 29.07.2021 before the policy inception date i.e. 04.08.2021, 3) Misrepresentation of material facts. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Insurance company wrote three letters Ex.R3 dated 01.12.2022, Ex.R4 dated 09.12.2022 and Ex.R5 dated 16.12.2022 to provide the details of calls made to 112(PCR) dated 29.07.2022 prior to the date of theft within 7 days. The complainant placed on record a document Ex.C20 ‘Emergency response support system(ERSS)’ received under RTI. Perusal of this document itself shows that complainant made a complaint from his mobile no.88180018082 on dated 04.08.2021 on emergency number 112 at 18:17:46 and call ended at 18:20:34. Meaning thereby just after the information the complainant informed the concerned police station regarding the theft. It is the prime duty of the police authorities to register the case just after the accident but FIR was got registered by the police officials belatedly on 11.08.2021. Moreover we have minutely perused the call history placed on record as Ex.C21. The perusal of this document itself shows that this call made on 29.07.2021 was for just 6 seconds and it was merely a missed call. Moreover written explanation was also given by the complainant regarding the calls which is placed on record by the respondent itself as Ex.R9 and he justified the call dated 29.07.2021. Hence the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the opposite party and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the IDV of vehicle to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the IDV of vehicle i.e Rs.37065/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand and sixty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.01.2023 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 29.03.2024 of this Commission.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
