Punjab

Sangrur

CC/725/2021

Sazal Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Yogesh Gupta

12 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 725

 Instituted on:   15.06.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     12.12.2024

Sazal Goyal aged about 31 years son of Ajay Pal Goyal R/o Aggarwal Colony, St.No.1-A, Near Telephone Exchange, Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director, Regd. & Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai 600014.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited through its Senior Branch Manager, Sunam City, NRG Complex, 1^st Floor, Sunam.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.

For OPs                       :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-0013 from the OPs under policy number 1117023118P117157668 for the period from 29.03.2019 to 28.03.2020 for the insured value of Rs.22,00,000/- after paying the requisite premium.

2.             The case of complainant is that during the intervening night of 29/30.11.2019, the vehicle in question was stolen, as such FIR number 270 dated 30.11.2019 under section 379 IPC was lodged in PS City Sangrur regarding theft of the vehicle. Further case of complainant is that he received only letters dated 15.3.2021 and 12.4.2021 but no earlier letter was received as mentioned in these letters.   Further case of complainant is that the police has presented challan against three accused in the court of CJM Sangrur, who framed charge on 29.02.2020 against them. The complainant has already submitted a copy of challan and letter of police to the investigator, but the OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant despite the fact the OPs are bound to settle the claim within the period of 90 days. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 22.04.2021 upon the OP number 2 to settle the claim, but of no use.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.22,00,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable against the OPs, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unnecessary litigation, that the complainant got financed his Toyota Fortuner car from ICICI Bank Limited, Sangrur which has not been impleaded as a party. The complainant has also not impleaded Deepak son of Rajesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar @ Kalu son of Leelu Ram resident of Biran P.S. Tosam, Distt. Bhiwani and Neeraj son of Rajinder resident of Sheetal Nagar, Gali No.5 Rohtak as necessary parties and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. On merits, it is admitted fact that car of the complainant was insured with the OPs for the period from 29.03.2018 to 28.03.2020. However it is denied for want of knowledge that the said vehicle was stolen. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and the complainant mentioned in his claim intimation letter, the vehicle was parked by himself rather in the FIR it is alleged that the said vehicle was parked by father of the complainant. The OPs immediately appointed investigator Shri Ankur Jindal, Adarsh Associates Sangrur to investigate the claim and recorded the statements of complainant and his father and also took photographs of the spot and submitted his detailed investigation report dated 14.7.2020 alongwith statements, photographs and other documents.  It is further averred that the OPs wrote letters dated 06.08.2020, 28.09.2020 and 27.10.2020 to the complainant and demanded required documents including non-traceable report of the court  but the complainant did not submit the same. The OPs again sent letter dated 15.03.2021 as reminder but the complainant did not submit the documents.  It is further averred that vide letter dated 15.07.2021 the OPs again demanded the require documents and also informed the complainant that the competent authority has approve the said claim for Rs.21,98,000/-on theft basis subject to the condition that on account of payment of 75% i.e. Rs.16,48,500/- of the claim amount will be released subject to withdrawal of theft claim of the car and remaining 25% amount i.e. Rs.5,49,500/- will be released after obtaining untraced report issued by the court, final police investigation report and demanded various documents  i.e. cancellation of policy from the date of accident, consent of the insured on affidavit, payment to financer, intimation to the concerned RTA , collection of letter of subrogation cum undertaking, power of attorney and usual transfer documents, collection of ignition keys and compliance of AML guidelines. When the complainant did not submit the documents demanded by the OPs and the complainant was not ready to withdraw the case from the court, then the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.07.2021 for the reasons 1 and 3 i.e. “inspite of letters/reminders sent to your, you have not complied with the required papers/documents. 3. We are closing your claim file on account of the following reason:- Others insured is not ready to withdraw the case from the court and documents not submitted. We absolve ourselves from any further liabilities arising out of this claim which please note.” It is further averred that since the FIR was lodged and challan was presented against the accused namely, Deepak, Naresh Kumar and Neeraj, as such the above said accused are liable to pay the claim of the vehicle in question  and the vehicle in question may be recovered from them.  It is stated further that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and lastly the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9, Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-16 copies of documents and Ex.C-10, Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-17 affidavits of complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 to Ex.OPs/10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. 

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the complainant and OPs that the car of the complainant was insured with the OPs and theft of the car in question on the intervening night on 029/30.11.2019 is also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the OPs appointed investigator Shri Ankur Jindal of Adarsh Associates Sangrur, who submitted his report dated 14.7.2020 to the OPs. In the present case, the repudiation of the claim by the OPs is only on the ground that the complainant had not submitted the required documents  and the insured was not ready to withdraw the case from the court as per the repudiation letter dated 30.07.2021 as mentioned in the written reply filed by the OPs, but a copy of the said letter dated 30.07.2021 has not been produced by the OPs on the record for the reasons best known to them.  The complainant has produced on record the copy of FIR dated 30.11.2019, Ex.C-2, which clearly reveals that the vehicle in question was stolen on the intervening night of 29/30.11.2019. Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 are the copies of letters sent to the complainant by OPs.  Ex.C-5 is the copy of  the letter dated 31.08.2020 issued/attested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sub Division, Sangrur whereby it is clearly mentioned that though the FIR number 270 dated 30.11.2019 was recorded and the case was registered against the accused Prem Singh etc. but the vehicle in question could not be recovered from them and the challan in the case has been filed before the Honourable Court. Ex.C-8 is the copy of legal notice served upon OP number 2 and Ex.C-9 is the postal receipt. Ex.C-14 is the copy of reply to the letter dated 15.7.2021, wherein it has clearly been mentioned that the OPs are duty bound to pay the claim amount of Rs.21,98,000/- to the complainant. All this evidence is duly supported by the affidavits of the complainant Ex.C-10, Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-17.

7.             On the other hand, the  learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complainant did not submit the require documents for settlement of the claim, as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 30.07.2021 for non submission of the documents as well as for not withdrawing of the case from the court.  We have perused the investigation report dated 14.07.2020 Ex.OPs/9 submitted by Shri Ankur Jindal of Adarsh Associates, Dhuri, wherein theft of the vehicle in question on the intervening night of 29/30.11.2019 has been established which was insured with the OPs. Further it is mentioned in the report that as per the information gathered from the police and the insured, the police arrested the accused in the said case but the insured vehicle has not been recovered by the police.  Though the stand of the OPs is that the payment of the said vehicle should be recovered from the accused persons, who had stolen the vehicle in question, but the fact remains that the OPs cannot avoid their liability to pay the claim by saying that the amount of claim be recovered from the accused persons.   There is nothing on record to show that the vehicle in question was ever recovered from the accused persons.  As such, we find that the complainant cannot be made to suffer for this reason in the hands of the OPs. Moreover, the Ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not submit the documents and withdrew the claim from the court.  In the circumstances, we are unable to go with the contention of the OPs for not paying the claim.  Since the OPs have withheld the rightful claim of the complainant, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   

8.             Further now coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  Ex.C-13 is the copy of email dated 15.7.2021 sent by  OP number 2 to the complainant, wherein it has clearly been mentioned that subsequent to the recommendation, competent authority has approved the above said claim for Rs.21,98,000/- on theft (IDV) basis subject to the condition that an on account payment of 75% (Rs.16,48,500/-) of the claim amount to be released subject to withdrawal of the theft claim (Fortuner car) from Hon’ble Court now and remaining 25% (Rs.5,49,500/-) to be released after obtaining untraced report issued by Court/Final.  But despite the approval of the claim, the OPs did not release the theft claim to the complainant without assigning any reason.  The complainant cannot be compelled to withdraw the case from the court for release of the payment and as such, we find it not to be a solid ground for withholding the rightful claim of the complainant.  Further the untraced report is to be issued by the Competent Court and not by the complainant, as such, the claim cannot be withheld on this ground also by the OPs. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Jaina Construction Company versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2022(2) RCR (Civil) 196,  wherein it has been held that the insurance company is not justified in repudiating the claim, if the accused who stolen the vehicle have been arrested and charge sheeted, but the vehicle could not be traced. Accordingly, we find that the OPs are not justified in repudiating/withholding the claim of the complainant. It is no doubt true that the OPs have admitted in the above said e-mail Ex.C-13 that the OPs have approved the claim amount of Rs.21,98,000/-, which was never paid to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.21,98,000/- to the complainant.

9.             It is worth mentioning here that the OPs have taken a stand in the written reply that the vehicle in question was under hypothecation with the ICICI Bank Limited, Sangrur, but the complainant did not implead it as a party nor it is the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question was not under hypothecation with the  ICICI Bank, Sangrur. As such, we are of the view that the ICICI Bank Sangrur has the first right to recover its dues from the claim amount.

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.21,98,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.06.2021 till realisation in full. However, it is made clear that the OPs shall pay the claim amount after paying the dues of the vehicle in question, if any,  to the ICICI Bank Limited, Sangrur from whom the vehicle in question was got financed by the complainant. We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of  litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by OPs within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

11.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                             Pronounced.

                             December 12. 2024.