DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2.6.2017

                                      Decided on:   3.12.2020

Surinder Singh, aged about 51 years son of Sampuran Singh, resident of H.No.5, Satkar Vihar, Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,Caliber Market, First Floor, 11-E,Patiala Road, Rajpura, District Patiala through  its Senior Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional office, Sai Market, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Amar Singh, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Counsel for OPs.                              

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Surinder Singh   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a new vehicle TATA 2515 Truck bearing registration No.HR-37A-3743 in 2002 by arranging loan of Rs.8 lacs for earning his livelihood. The complainant got the truck registered with District Transport Office, Ambala Cantt. The truck was got insured with OP No.1 vide cover note dated 7.10.2015 w.e.f.7.10.2015 to 6.10.2016 by paying premium of Rs.25,714/-.
3. It is averred that Sh.Raj Kumar, who was working with the complainant as a co-driver, parked the truck in question near Janta School, Rajpura/Railway Station, Rajpura on 21.2.2016 at about 7P.M. At 11P.M. after locking the truck he went to his house at stone throwing distance.
4. It is further averred that on the next morning i.e. 22.2.2016 Raj Kumar went to get his vehicle and found the same was missing from the place of parking and immediately informed the complainant about the missing of vehicle. Complainant immediately reached at the spot and inquired about theft of vehicle from the nearby people. Thereafter he visited the police station, City Rajpura and got DDR registered. The Insurance Company was also informed on the same day. The FIR was written on 1.3.2016, after conducting preliminary inquiry.
5. It is further averred that OP No.1 has wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground i.e. late information to the police station, OP and also one of the key being left in the said vehicle.
6. It is averred that key of the vehicle has been handed over to the Sr.Branch Manager, personally when claim case was sent to OP No.2 for sanction. As such there is neither any negligence nor the complainant has violated any condition as alleged by the OPs. Legal notice dated 4.5.2017 was also got served upon the OPs with the request to review their stand but to no effect. Legal notice was responded to by OP No.1 vide letter dated 12.5.2017.
7. The rejection of claim by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving direction to the OPs to pay the insurance claim of Rs.4,00,000/-alongwith interest; to pay compensation on account of mental agony, tension and humiliation suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the case by filing written statement. In the written statement preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated vide letter dated 18.4.2017 on the ground that the alleged theft of truck No.HR37-A-3743 has taken place on 22.2.2016 and the complainant has intimated the loss to the insurance company on 1.3.2016 and got registered FIR No.38 dated 1.3.2016 U/S 379 IPC with Police station Rajpura City , which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy and secondly one of the key of the truck was left in the truck, which amounts to negligence on the part of the insured and that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against the OPs and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. On merits, it is admitted that the truck in question was insured with the OPs for the period from 7.10.2015 to 6.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.4lakhs in the name of the complainant. It is stated that Police has recorded FIR No.38 dated 1.3.2016 U/s 379 IPC at 19:32 hours with Police Station, Rajpura city. It is further stated that the claim has already been rejected vide letter dated 18.4.2017. It is further stated that on receipt of intimation of loss, the OPs had immediately deputed M/s BB Investigating Agency, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala to investigate the case who in his report dated 28.11.2016 found that the loss has been intimated on 1.3.2016 and the insured, as per his statement, one door key of the Tralla left in the truck, which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.Mohinder Pal Dabar, Sr. Branch Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.H.S.Bedi, Investigator alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
12. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13.  The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that OPs have wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant. The ld. counsel has further argued that even in the report of Investigator, Ex.C10, it is no where mentioned that the theft has not taken place. The ld. counsel has further argued that the FIR was duly lodged. The ld. counsel has further argued that from the FIR it is clear that truck was stolen and Sh.D.P.Garg,Sr. branch manager has wrongly rejected the claim on 18.4.2017 on flimsy grounds. The ld. counsel has relied upon the citations  M/s A.R.Paints & Chemical Industry Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018(1) CLT 140, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2016(1)CLT 477,  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta, 2018(1)CLT 338, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. 2018(2)CLT 357, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramcharan Dhobi 2017(1)CLT 557,  and Mahabir Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018(2)CLT 337.
14. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the theft took place on the intervening night of 21/22.2.2016 and the report /FIR was lodged on 1.3.2016.So there is delay of 6-7 days in lodging the FIR. The ld. counsel has further argued that one key was left by the driver inside the truck and that was negligence on his part. The ld. counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2018 ACJ8.
15. In the present case, admittedly truck in question was insured with the OPs The truck was stolen on the intervening night of 21/22.2.2016 and admittedly the FIR was registered on 1.3.2016.
16. In support of his case, Surinder Singh, complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA accompanied by the licence of the driver,Ex.C1, RC,Ex.C2, National permit, Ex.C3, certificate of registration, Ex.C4,insurance cover note, Ex.C5, first information report, Ex.C6,rejection of the claim,Ex.C7, legal notice, Ex.C8, and investigation report, Ex.C10.
17. On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit of Mohinder Pal Dewan, Deputy Manager, Ex.OPA, affidavit of Investigator H.S.Bedi, Ex.OPB, rejection of the claim,Ex.OP1, rules of insurance, Ex.OP2, investigation report, Ex.OP4, intimation of theft of the vehicle on 29.2.2016, Ex.OP5.
18. The theft took place on the intervening night of 21/22.2.2016 and the case was sent to the investigator, as per the report, Ex.C10  on 7.11.2016 after a delay of 9 months. This investigation report is a detailed report and the investigator has gone through every aspect of the case. In the last/conclusion report it is mentioned that on the basis of the verification from the spot of theft, they are of the opinion that truck-tralla was stolen on the intervening night of 21/22.2.2016 from near Railway Station Rajpura and the theft claim of the tralla lodged by the insured may be considered for settlement.
19. So, it is clear from the report of the investigator that the truck in question was stolen.FIR in this regard was registered on 1.3.2016.Copy of FIR is on the file. As per the letter written by D.P.Garg, Sr. Branch Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Patiala Road, Rajpura on 18.4.2017, he has rejected the claim on the ground that immediate notice of claim to the company and police authority is must but intimation of theft loss to the insurance company as well lodging of FIR with police is late about a week, which is violation of condition no.1 of the policy and one key of said truck left in the truck at the time of theft, which is part of negligence.
20. This repudiation is totally frivolous and baseless as Sh.D.P.Garg, the then Sr.Branch Manager has deliberately rejected the claim for the reasons best known to him. Theft was taken place on the intervening night of 21/22.2.2016 and the intimation was sent to the insurance company on 29.2.2016 and the FIR was lodged on 1.3.2016.Evey thing was done by the complainant within time. There is no evidence on the file to show that key was left in the truck which is part of negligence. So it is clear that the insurance company has wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant and the whole fault lies upon Sh.D.P.Garg, the then Sr.Branch Manager of the United India Insurance Company, Calibre market, Ist Floor, Patiala Road, Rajpura.
21. The ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the judgment  Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2018 ACJ8 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in which it has been held that in the case of theft 75% of the insured amount be given .
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint stands allowed with a direction to the OPs to pay 75% of the insured amount to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of theft i.e. 22.2.2016 till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and this compensation shall be deducted from the salary of the then Sr.Branch Manager (where ever he is posted) who has wrongly and without any reason rejected the claim for the reasons best known to him. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.
23.           The order be complied by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.      

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 3.12.2020      

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati                        Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                          Member                                     President