District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 177/2021.
Date of Institution:30.03.2021.
Date of Order: 17.03.2023
Satender Bhadana son of Shri Rahdey Lal, resident of H.No. 655, Village Gothra Mohabtabad, Pali, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Universal Sompo Gen. Insurance Company Ltd., Ist floor, SCF 2, Sector-35, Ashoka Enclave I, Faridabad – 121003, Haryana (Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory/Representative).
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Vikas Bhadana, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Nitish Kumar, counsel for opposite party
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of transport vehicle/truck model No. LPK 2523 bearing registration No. HR38U8807 and the said village was insured from the opposite
party vide cover note No. USGIA/2019055733 and policy No. 2315/59831311/00/001 valid from 06.05.2019 to mid night of 05.05.2020. On the above said vehicle of the complainant was stolen from 100, feet road, Pradeep Vihar, Burari, Delhi – 110 084 on 01.02.2020 regarding which FIR was registered at Delhi baring FIR No. 003774 dated 02.02.2020 under section 3798, P.S. E-Police Station (Burari, North District). The complainant went to the office of the opposite party for theft claim covered under the said policy, submitted the claim form alongwith all necessary documents to the opposite party wherein, the officials of opposite party got signatures of the complainant on several documents including some on blank papers and assured the complainant to release the theft claim as early as possible. Later on the police submitted its final report/untraced report, which was accepted by court order dated 05.10.2020. The complainant requested the opposite party to give the benefits of the said policy, but the opposite party delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to give the theft . The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) release of the theft claim amount qua the above said insurance policy alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident till actual realization..
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had malafidely file the complaint for theft and had not provided proper details during the investigation of the surveyor. Opposite party
No.1 had rightly refused the claim of the complainant as the complainant had not given proper details during the investigation of the surveyor, which violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) release of the theft claim amount qua the above said insurance policy alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident till actual realization. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex. CW1/A – affidavit of Satender Bhadana, Ex.CW2/A – Shri Tikam Dutt son of Shri Bhudutt resident of village Pawta, Tehsil and District Faridabad,, Ex.CW3/A – Sukh Ram allias Babli son of Shri Nanua Ram resident of Village Paota, Tehsil and district Faridabad, Ex.C-1 – RC,. Ex.C-2 – Insurance policy, Ex.C-3(colly) -Form 38, , Ex.C4(Colly) – Tax receipt, Ex.C-5 – Authorization Certificate of N.P.(Goods), Ex.C6 – General Diary, Ex.C-7 – FIR, Ex.C-8 – Order dated 05.10.2020 passed by Ms. Shefali Sharma, ACMM-01, Central District Tis Hazari Courts,, Ex.C9 (Colly 1-2) – repudiation letter dated 23.02.2021.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party , Ex.RW1/A - affidavit of Shir Prashant V Shukla, office at Unit 601 & 602, Reliable Tech Park, Airoli, Ex.RW1/1 - surveyor report.
6. In this case, complainant was the registered owner of transport vehicle/truck model No. LPK 2523 bearing registration No. HR38U8807 and the said village was insured from the opposite party vide cover note No. USGIA/2019055733 and policy No. 2315/59831311/00/001 valid from 06.05.2019 to mid night of 05.05.2020. On the above said vehicle of the complainant was stolen from 100, feet road, Pradeep Vihar, Burari, Delhi – 110084 on 01.02.2020 regarding which FIR was registered at Delhi baring FIR No. 003774 dated 02.02.2020 under section 3798, P.S. E-Police Station (Burari, North District). Opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23.02.2021 vide Ex.C9 (colly ) on the ground that at the time of investigation you haven’t produced Mr. Babli (person with whose reference the insured’s vehicle was brought to Delhi for work purpose) for the investigation purpose of the theft vehicle. On 19.12.2020 you had produced Mr. Sukh Ram for investigation, who stated that Sukh Ram is his original name and his alies name is Babli, and he doesn’t have any ID proof of his alies name Babli. Sl, without any ID proof it is not confirmed that the said person Mr. Sukh Ram is the same person whose name is Babli.
7. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has produced the certificate dated 02.03.2023 of Ms. Manju Kumar, Sarpanch, Village, Pawata, Faridabad in which it has been stated that the name of Sukhram and Babli is the same person.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis after deduction of 15% of the insured value of the vehicle in question and also pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of
mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 17.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
