Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he got insured his vehicle Scooter No.PB-29-P-8638 Mark Hero Maestro, Model 2013, Engine No. JF32AADGB, Chassis No.MBLIF32ABDGB with Opposite Parties vide policy No. 2012003119P106591157 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- valid for the period w.e.f. 29.08.2019 to 28.08.2020. Further alleges that during the policy period, the said vehicle of the complainant  has been stolen on 16.12.2019 when it was parked  outside his house. The complainant immediately  moved an application on 16.12.2019 to SHO PS, City South, Moga and and informed the Opposite Parties in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim for the insurance amount of the insured vehicle  with the Opposite Parties and also completed all the relevant documents, but the Opposite Parties repudiated he claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous grounds. 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)       To make the insured value of the vehicle amounting to Rs.15,000/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the Complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation and also to grant any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

2.       Opposite Parties-Insurance Company  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the  complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, the  complainant neither  informed the concerned police station nor the Opposite Parties regarding the theft of the insured vehicle nor submitted the documents i.e. FIR of theft reported, Non Traceable report etc, and due to non intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle, the claim could not be processed and settled. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant has to inform regarding the theft of the insured vehicle to the concerned police authority as well as to the Opposite Parties immediately after the occurrence, but the complainant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy and due to this reason,  the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.           

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.C10  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties also  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. R.N.Bansal, Ex.Ops1 alongwith copy of policy Ex.Ops2 and  closed evidence.

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

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties   have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file.         It is not denial of the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company that the complainant has got his vehicle Scooter No.PB-29-P-8638 Mark Hero Maestro, Model 2013, Engine No. JF32AADGB, Chassis No.MBLIF32ABDGB insured with Opposite Parties vide policy No. 2012003119P106591157 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- valid for the period w.e.f. 29.08.2019 to 28.08.2020. Copy of the policy is placed on record as Ex.C3.  It is also not denied that the said vehicle of the complainant  has been stolen on 16.12.2019 when it was parked  outside his house. The main grouse of the Opposite Parties for repudiating the claim of the complainant is that the complainant has not informed about the theft of the insured vehicle to the concerned police authority or with the Opposite Parties well within time, and due to this reason, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, the claim of the complainant could not be processed or settled.  But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties because on the same of occurrence of the theft of the insured vehicle i.e. 16.12.2021, the complainant  immediately informed the SHO, P.S.City South, Moga regarding the theft of the vehicle and also moved an written application with the concerned police authority, copy of the said application is placed on record as Ex.C4 and it also received by duly stamped by the concerned police authority.  Not only this, as far as interpretation of terms and conditions of the policy are concerned, the same have been considered by different courts at different intervals and a reference  can conveniently be made to Mantoo Ram Bari Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2016)2) CLT page 310 (NC) wherein there was a delay of seven days in intimation given to the insurance company and it was held that the insurance company can not be saddled with liability to pay compensation to the claimant who himself has not complied with terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted as mentioned above that when complainant has filed an application with the police authority immediately after the occurrence of theft, there is no contractual obligation under the policy of insurance for the insured to get produce any other documents from the concerned police authority. The same view has been taken by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission in case New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yadvalli Gangadevi I(2004) CPJ 263 as well as by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case Ridhi Gupta Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. III(2008) CPJ 459.  In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that Opposite Parties are not justified in closing the case of the complainant as ‘no claim’  and the complainant was forced to file the present complaint. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant. 

7.       In such a situation the repudiation made by the Opposite Party regarding genuine claim of the complainant appears to have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pesters 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 seems 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.

8.       Now come to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, as per the policy document Ex.C2, the vehicle in question was insured with IDV of Rs.15,000/- and hence, the Opposite Party-Insurance Company is directed to pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question, to the complainant i.e. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands only) within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney 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-Insurance Company by the complainant, failing which the Opposite Party-Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest on the awarded amount  @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 16.04.2021 till its realization.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.