Haryana

Kaithal

397/19

Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kabir Dhall

10 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.397/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 26.11.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:10.08.2023.

Mohinder Singh age about 50 years S/o Sh. Ram Nath, r/o H.No.1556, Ward No.5, Chiranjivi Colony, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Karnal Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

….OP.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. K.K.Khetarpal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Mohinder Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured his vehicle Eicher Canter No.HR64-6568 with the OP vide policy No.1107053117P114370828 valid for the period w.e.f. 09.01.2018 to 08.01.2019.  The case of complainant is that on 23.03.2018 the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from the area of TPT Centre Ajadpur, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi regarding which an FIR bearing No.9667 dt. 24.03.2018 was registered in Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.  Information regarding theft of vehicle was given to the complainant.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.09.2019 on the ground that “As per investigation report and our observations the keys submitted by the insured are different from the each other and insured has stated that both these keys were being used for accessing the ignition and door locks of the said vehicle.  As per this piece of information, it seems that the lock of the said vehicle was damaged and was easily accessible with any key.  Hence, it can be concluded that the insured has not taken proper measures to safeguard the vehicle.”  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the claim of complainant has already been repudiated by the competent authority of insurance company on the legal ground as-well-as report of Independent Investigator.  As per report of investigator, keys submitted by the insured are different from the each other and insured has told that both the keys were being used for accessing the ignition and door locks of the said vehicle.  So, the complainant has violated the terms and condition No.4 of insurance policy.  Hence, the repudiation is stated to be legal and valid.  It is further stated that the complainant had given intimation of alleged theft on 28.03.2018 to insurance company as vehicle was allegedly stolen on 24.03.2018 i.e. after 4 days of the theft.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle Eicher Canter No.HR64-6568 with the OP vide policy No.1107053117P114370828 valid for the period w.e.f. 09.01.2018 to 08.01.2019.  It is further argued that on 23.03.2018 the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from the area of TPT Centre Ajadpur, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi regarding which an FIR bearing No.9667 dt. 24.03.2018 was registered in Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.  It is further argued that the complainant got lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.09.2019 on the ground that as per investigation report and our observations the keys submitted by the insured are different from the each other.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 24.01.2020 bearing Civil Appeal No.653 and Mahabir Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 16.01.2018 bearing Revision Petition No.735 of 2013.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has also submitted written arguments.    

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that that the claim of complainant has already been repudiated by the competent authority of insurance company vide letter dt. 24.09.2019 on the legal ground as-well-as report of Independent Investigator.  It is further argued that as per report of investigator, keys submitted by the insured are different from the each other and insured has told that both the keys were being used for accessing the ignition and door locks of the said vehicle.  So, the complainant has violated the terms and condition No.4 of insurance policy.  Hence, the repudiation is stated to be legal and valid.  It is further argued that the complainant had given intimation of alleged theft on 28.03.2018 to insurance company as vehicle was allegedly stolen on 24.03.2018 i.e. after 4 days of the theft.  Ld. counsel for the OP has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Daljeet Singh Kashmeer Singh Batth 2018(2) CLT 270 decided by Hon’ble National Commission and Sushma Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda and others 2018(2) CLT 499 decided by Hon’ble National Commission. 

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was stolen on 23.03.2018 in the area of TPT Centre Ajadpur, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and the complainant got lodged an FIR bearing No.9667 dt. 24.03.2018 in P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.  The main objection of OP is that keys submitted by the insured were different from the each other and insured had told that both the keys were being used for accessing the ignition and door locks of the said vehicle and there was also delay of 4 days in giving intimation to the OP.  No doubt, the complainant has violated the terms and condition No.1 & 4 of insurance policy but there would have been no justification for the OP for denying the claim of complainant in its entirely only for such violation of terms and condition.  In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as Amalendu Sahoo Vs. OIC Ltd., 2010(2) CPJ 9, wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that even in cases where there is any breach of warranty/conditions of policy, an amount upto 75% of the admissible claim can be agreed to.  Similarly, in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in II(2006) CPJ page 83 (NC), wherein, it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that in case of violation of condition of policy as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis. In the authority titled as Mohammad Ejaj Vs.UII, 2014(4) CLT page 161 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana), it has been held that Insurance Claim-Repudiation-On the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. and 36 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to the Insurance Companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of F.I.R. and late intimation to the Insurance Company-Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to Insurance Companies which are binding upon them-Appeal accepted. In the authority cited in 2016(2) CLT page 434 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana) titled as Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satbir, wherein the head-note, it is mentioned that Insurance claim-Theft of insured tractor-Prompt FIR-Delay of 66 days in intimation to insurance company-Held-In the Circular Ref:IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated September 20, 2011 issued by ‘IRDA’, it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”-Insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant-Appeal dismissed.

10.            The above authorities are fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas, the case law relied upon by the ld. counsel for the OP are not distinguishable but the same are not applicable to the present case.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the claim in respect of vehicle in question should have been settled by the OP on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement. Therefore, the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant in toto. 

11.            Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured value (Rs.5,67,000/- as per policy-Annexure-C1) which becomes Rs.4,25,250/- within 45 days from today.  However, the complainant is directed to submit the subrogation letter and cancellation of ownership of vehicle in question obtained from the concerned Registering Authority within 30 days with the Op.  The OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that if the OP is failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.4,25,250/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization. 

12.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent-OP shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:10.08.2023.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.