Haryana

Karnal

CC/682/2021

Rajender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Abhimanyu Lather

26 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 682 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt. 06.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:26.09.2023

 

Rajender Kumar son of Shri Jagdish Paul, resident of VPO Rasulpur Kalan, P.O. Mohiudinpur, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Karnal through its Divisional Manager, 1^st floor, Durga Mata Mandir Complex, old G.T. Road, near bus stand, Karnal, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Abhimanu Lather, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Virender Adlakha, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is registered owner of motorcycle Bajaj Platina bearing registration no.HR-05-AH-0152, Model 2012 and  he got insured the said vehicle with the  OP, vide policy no.1107053116P108358376, valid from 25.09.2016 to 24.09.2017 and paid the premium to the OP. On 25.07.2017, complainant went to District Court Complex, Karnal for the purpose of attestation of form of PAN card and he parked his motorcycle there and when he returned back, his motorcycle was missing and was stolen by some unknown person and complainant immediately made call at no.100 and in this regard also moved application to Police of Police Station Civil Lines and in this regard FIR no.599 dated 28.07.2017 Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal u/s 379 IPC was registered. The intimation in this regard was also sent to the OP. The claim form alongwith all the required documents was also submitted to the OP on 31.07.2017. The official of the OP assured the complainant orally, his claim will be honored as early as possible. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP so many times and requested to settle the claim of the complainant but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.09.2019 to the OP but it also did not yield any result and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 25.07.2017 on the false and frivolous ground. OP never intimated the complainant regarding the repudiation of his claim. Complainant finally received a letter dated 10.09.2019 from the OP whereby it was informed that his claim is already repudiated by the OP. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; limitation and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle in question was stolen on 25.07.2017 and FIR was lodged after three days of the theft i.e. 28.07.2017 and the intimation to the insurer/OP was given on 31.07.2017 after six days of the theft. It is further pleaded that complainant has not provided the documents as required by the OP. The complainant has not provided the 100 numbers V.T. Report and untraced report from the police, after number of reminders through registered post on 21.08.2017, 28.09.2017 and 05.12.2017 respectively. The OP has made the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ on 11.07.2018. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

 

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of FIR Ex.C2, copy of claim form Ex.C3, copy of RTI reply Ex.C4, copy of untrace report Ex.C5, copy of legal notice Ex.C6, copy of postal receipt Ex.C7, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C8, copy of postal receipt Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 20.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kamal Saini, Assistant Manager, Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of R.N. Sharma & Associates, Approved Investigator Ex.OPW2/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1, copy of FIR u/s 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.OP2, copy of motor claim form Ex.OP3, copy of investigation report of R.N. Sharma Ex.OP4, copy of letters dated 27.08.2017, 28.09.2017,  05.12.2017 and 27.02.2018 regarding submission of 100 number VT report from the police and untrace report from the court Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP8, copy of repudiation letter dated 11.07.2018 Ex.OP9,  copy of claim from Ex.OP10, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on 17.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his vehicle with the OP. On 25.07.2017, the vehicle of complainant was stolen and in this regard an FIR no.599 dated 28.07.2017, under section 379 of IPC was got registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. The intimation was sent to the OP. On 20.10.2018, the police submitted the untrace report. Complainant submitted all the documents alongwith the untrace report with the OP and requested to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim and repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the theft of the vehicle was occurred on 25.07.2017 and FIR in this regard was got lodged on 28.07.2018 by the complainant after delay of three days and intimation was given to the OP on 31.07.2017 i.e. after inordinate delay of six days. He further argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The OP has alleged that present complaint is barred by limitation as the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP on 11.07.2018 and thereafter no cause of action has arisen between the complainant and the OP. The question of limitation for filing the complaint has already been decided by the Commission, vide order dated 09.12.2021 in view case law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Court of its own Motion Vs. Union of India and others bearing CWP no.77 of 2021. Hence, in view of the above plea taken by the OP has no force.

11.           Admittedly, complainant got his vehicle insured with the OP. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.25,000/-.

12.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide letter Ex.OP9 dated 11.07.2018 on the ground that the insured has not provided the 100 number V.T. report and untrace report. Hence, the claim file of complainant is filed as ‘No Claim’. Closed the file as ‘No Claim’.

13.           OP had asked the complainant to provide the 100 numbers V.T. Report and untraced report from the police. Complainant has filed the untrace report on record Ex.C5 dated 04.08.2018. When the complainant has placed on file the copy of untrace report then as to why he will not provide the same to the OP. Further with regard to prove the 100 numbers V.T. report, if OP had any doubt above it, the same could be collected by the OP from the Police Department but OP failed to do so. Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such huge amount why he will not supply the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigation. Hence, in view of the above, we find no substance in this contention of the OP.

14.           There is three days delay in lodging the FIR and six days delay of intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question by the complainant to the OP. In the present complaint, vehicle in question was stolen on 25.07.2018 and complainant alleged that he had immediately intimated to the police and but police lodged the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.C2 on 28.07.2018. Generally, the owner/Driver of the vehicle first tries to search the vehicle at his own level, but when he fails to trace out the same, the matter is reported to the police. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the police does not register the FIR immediately after getting information of theft of any vehicle, either the complainant is asked to trace out the vehicle at his own level or efforts are made by the police for searching the vehicle, but when the vehicle is not traced out, then only the FIR is registered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the case titled as Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and anr. in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.11 of the said judgment, that it is a common knowledge that a person who has 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 holder in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We also placed reliance upon the judgment in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co. in Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.20 of the said judgment has held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. The similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dharamnder Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others in civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 date of decision 13.09.2021 and Jatin Construction Company Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. in Civil Apeal no.1069 of 2022 date of decision 11.02.2022.

15.           Furthermore, if for the sake of gravity, if it is presumed that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in that eventuality, the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated in toto.  In this regard, we  rely upon the case laws cited in Revision Petition no.1870 of 2015(NC) decided on 14.08.2018 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Thirath Singh Brar and authority of our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal.  In both judgments it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis.

16.Further,Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.    

17.           Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered views that act of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved as genuine one.  Hence, complainant is entitled to get 75% only of the admissible claim on non-standard basis.

18.           As per insurance policy Ex.OP1, the insured declared value of the vehicle in question is Rs.25,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.18,750/- i.e. 75% of the insured amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain and agony and litigation expenses etc.

19.           In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.18,750/- (Rs.eighteen thousand seven hundred fifty only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to complete all the formalities with regard to transfer/cancel of the RC of the vehicle in question. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:26.09.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member