State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sanjay Kumar Beriwal on 6 July, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/51
Instituted on : 23.03.2017
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Through : Branch Manager,
Sattigurhi,
Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant (O.P.)
Vs.
Sanjay Kumar Beriwal, S/o Shambhu Dayal Beriwal,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o : Vikash Nagar, Kotra Road, Raigarh,
Tehsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent (Complainant)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.).
Shri Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate for the respondent (complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 06/07/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/134/2015. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
// 2 //
(a) The O.P. (Insurance Company) will settle the Motor Claim Form dated 24.11.2013 submitted by the complainant according to the insurance policy within 30 days and will pay the claim amount.
(b) If the O.P. (Insurance Company) commit delay in settling the claim, then the O.P. (Insurance Company) will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. p.a. on insurance claim amount from the date of submitting claim till realisation.
(c) The O.P. (Insurance Company) will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant within one month.
(d) The O.P. (Insurance Company) will pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant within one month.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is owner of trailer bearing registration No.C.G.13-L-1053. The above vehicle was purchased by the complainant with the financial help of H.D.F.C. for his employment purpose. The above vehicle was insured with the O.P. for the period from 09.11.2013 to 08.11.2014 under Policy No.45090331130100006578. In the intervening night of 12- 13/11/2013, the above vehicle of the complainant was stolen from near Gorkha Reliance Petrol Pump, intimation regarding which was given to Police Station, Kotra Road, on 13.11.2013, where Crime No.319/2013 was // 3 // registered. The complainant gave intimation regarding theft of the vehicle to the O.P within prescribed time and thereafter on 13.11.2013 the O.P. got filled up intimation and on 24.11.2014 got filled up claim form. Thereafter the complainant submitted the documents relating to the vehicle and copy of F.I.R. On 16/03.2015 the complainant submitted order sheet of the Court with the O.P. Intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was also given to R.T.O. Raigarh on 02.02.2015. The complainant submitted all relevant documents with the O.P. The complainant purchased the trailer with financial help, therefore, he is paying interest separately. The complainant is also paying installment of the trolley in every month separately. The O.P. is not making payment of Rs.13,00,000/- which is actual cost of the trailer along with interest imposed on him by H.D.F.C. Bank, due to which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony. The act of the O.P. comes in the category of deficiency in service. After depositing relevant documents with the O.P., the complainant orally demanded claim amount of Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest, but the O.P. is avoiding to pay the same. On 18.06.2015, the complainant demanded the claim amount in writing from the O.P., but even then the O.P. did not settle the claim of the complainant and also did not give any intimation to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
// 4 //
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant and averred that the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-L-1053 was insured by the O.P. under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The vehicle was not stolen in the intervening night of 12-13/11/2013 from near Gorkha Petrol Pump, and intimation regarding the same was not given to Police Station, KIotra Road on 13.11.2013 and Crime No.319/13 was not registered. The complainant gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle to the O.P. very belatedly. The O.P. is not having information that the complainant gave intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle to R.T.O. Raigarh on 02.05.2015. The complainant did not deposit all relevant documents with the O.P. The complainant is not paying the installment per month separately in respect of trolley and is paying interest separately. The complainant did not suffer financial loss and mental agony. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The O.P. did not avoid to pay the claim amount. The complainant himself is not taking interests towards his claim, due to which the claim has not been settled. The O.P. demanded documents from the complainant several time and he gave assurance to provide documents to the O.P. but till date the complainant has not provided the same to the O.P., due to which the claim is pending. The O.P. wants to settle the claim at the earliest but could not take decision. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 13.11.2013. The complainant did not pay Rs.2,14,755/- till 07.09.2015 to H.D.F.C. and he is // 5 // not entitled to get the same from the O.P. The complainant gave intimation to the O.P. on 22.11.2013 regarding the theft of the vehicle occurred on 12- 13/11/2013 and the O.P. directed the complainant to provide the documents related to the vehicle and informed the complainant that the vehicle was not got insured with the O.P. earlier. Within 5 days after getting the vehicle insured on 09.11.2013, the complainant is making averment regarding theft of the vehicle which comes under close proximity, therefore, it is necessary to elaborately investigate the matter because it is possible that the vehicle was got insured after incident of theft of the vehicle, therefore, it is expected from the complainant that he will provide the documents immediately, which have been demanded from him so that investigation be possible and the investigation report be sent to the higher authorities and the claim can be settled at the earliest. The O.P. informed the complainant that in absence of final report of the Police, further action cannot be taken, therefore, the O.P. asked the complainant to file the final report of the Police at the earliest The O.P. also informed the complainant that it is necessary to investigate regarding movement of the vehicle and after investigation, the report is essential, therefore, prior to days of getting the vehicle insured i.e. 09.11.2013, information regarding all movement of the vehicle be provided to the O.P. The complainant assured to provide the above document at the earliest. The complainant provided the copy of the Khatma Adesh dated 16.03.2015 issued by the Court to the O.P. in the month of August, 2015, but till date the // 6 // complainant did not provide documents relating to the movement of the vehicle. The complainant assured the O.P. many times to submit the documents, which were demanded, at the earliest but till date the above documents have not been provided by him to the O.P. due to which the claim of the complainant could not be settled. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint before the District Forum. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Document No.1 is letter dated 18.06.2015 sent by the complainant to the O.P., document No.2 is intimation given by the complainant to the Incharge Officer, Police Station, Kotra Road, Raigarh, document No.3 is letter dated 13.11.2013 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, document No.4 is First Information Report, document No.5 is Motor Claim Form, document No.6 is Collection Receipt Cum Adjustment Voucher, Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance, document No.7 is Certificate of Registration of Vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.-13-L-1053, document No.8 is permit for goods vehicle, document No.9 is challan, document No.10 is Certificate of Fitness, document No.11 is order sheet dated 15.03.2015, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Raigarh in Crime No.319/2013, document No.12 is letter dated 02.05.2013 sent by the complainant to District Transport Officer, Raigarh, document No.13 is letter dated 08.05.2015 sent by the H.D.F.C. Bank to the complainant, document No.14 is letter dated 03.06.2015 sent by HDFC // 7 // Bank to the complainant, document No.15 is letter dated 07.09.2015 sent by HDFC Bank to the complainant, document No.16 is relevant copy of courier register.
5. The O.P. has filed documents. Document No.1 is affidavit of Manager, Anoop Road Carrier,, document No.2 is affidavit of affidavit of Proprietor Palli Transport, document No.3 is Certificate issued by N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., document No.4 is Certificate issued by Salasar Steel and Power Ltd., document No.5 is pass, document No.6 is slip issued by S.E.C.L. document No.7 is weighment slip.
6. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to pay the amounts as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
7. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is erroneous. The respondent (complainant) gave delayed intimation in respect of the incident of theft of the vehicle to the appellant (O.P.), which is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.). The claim of the respondent (complainant) is still pending before the appellant (O.P.) and the same has not been decided yet, therefore, the case of the respondent (complainant) is pre-mature. The cause of action has not accrued to the complainant, but // 8 // the District Forum did not consider the above aspect of the matter and erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, interest @ 9% p.a., therefore, it is just and proper to remit back the case to the District Forum for considering the case afresh. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) may be allowed and impugned order passed by the District Forum may be set aside and case may be remitted back to the District Forum for considering the matter afresh.
8. Shri Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. The incident of theft of the vehicle took place in intervening night of 12-13/11/2013 and the matter was immediately reported to concerned Police Station. The intimation was also given to the appellant (O.P.) on 13.11.2013. It appears that the intimation regarding theft of vehicle was given by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.) without delay. The respondent (complainant) is registered owner of trailer bearing registration No.C.G.13-L-1053 and the vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 09.11.2013 to 08.11.2014. The incident of theft of the vehicle was occurred in intervening night of 12-13/11/2013 during subsistence of the insurance policy. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.20,00,000/- and the vehicle was purchased in the year 2011, therefore, the respondent (complainant) sough compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. The respondent // 9 // (complainant) is entitled for the above amount from the appellant (O.P.). The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum, as well as the impugned order.
10. It is admitted facts that the respondent (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle trailer bearing registration No. C.G. 13-L-1053, which was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 09.11.2013 to 08.11.2014.
11. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that the incident of theft of vehicle was occurred in the intervening night of 12-13/11/2013 near Gorkha Reliance Petrol Pump. The respondent (complainant) filed written reported dated 13.11.2013. In the written report, it is mentioned that the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-L-1053 was parked near Gorkha Reliance Petrol Pump at 7.30 P.M. and the driver had locked the vehicle properly. On next morning at about 6.30 A.M., when driver reached to the place where he parked the vehicle, he found that the vehicle was not parked there. The driver searched the vehicle here and there, but the vehicle could not be traced. On the basis of written report, Offence No.319/2013 under Section 379 IPC was registered at Police Station, Kotra Road, District Raigarh on 22.11.2013. Looking to the written report, it // 10 // appears that the matter was reported by the respondent (complainant) to the concerned Police Station immediately.
12. The respondent (complainant) has filed intimation regarding incident of theft of the vehicle sent by him to the appellant (O.P.) in which the date is mentioned "13/11/2013". The same is supported by the affidavit of the respondent (complainant) as well as Motor Claim Form. The appellant (O.P.) did not rebut the above facts. It appears that the respondent (complainant) sent intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle to the appellant (O.P.) immediately, therefore, the respondent (complainant) did not violate the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
13. The respondent (complainant) has filed copy of Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance. In the insurance policy, the Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) of the vehicle is mentioned Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs). The respondent (complainant ) has filed document No.7 which is Certificate of Registration of Vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13--L- 1053. In the Certificate of Registration, the Registration Date is mentioned as 15-Nov-2011. It shows that the vehicle was purchased in the month of December, 2011, whereas the incident of theft of the vehicle was occurred in the month of November, 2013 i.e. after near about two years of the date of purchase of the vehicle. The respondent (complainant) himself claimed a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- which is depreciated value of the vehicle in // 11 // question, therefore, the claim sought by the respondent (complainant) is jut and proper. The respondent (complainant) is entitled to get Rs.13,00,000/- from the appellant (O.P.).
14. Learned District Forum has not specifically directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- to the respondent (complainant), but learned District Forum directed that the appellant (O.P.) The O.P. (Insurance Company) will settle the Motor Claim Form dated 24.11.2013 submitted by the complainant according to the insurance policy within 30 days and will pay the claim amount. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.20,00,000/-, whereas the respondent (complainant) sought only Rs.13,00,000/- which is depreciated value of vehicle in question, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled for getting Rs.13,00,000/-. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be modified accordingly.
15. The learned District Forum directed that if the O.P. commit delay in settlement of the claim, then it is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of submitting claim. The above direction is just and proper. The District Forum has also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. The respondent (complainant) submitted his claim before the appellant (O.P.) but according the appellant (O.P.), the claim of the respondent (complainant) was not settled by it, therefore, the appellant (O.P.) has definitely committed deficiency in service. Hence, the // 12 // respondent (complainant) is entitled for getting compensation towards mental agony and the learned District Forum has rightly awarded the same to the respondent (complainant).
16. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the District Forum is just and proper but sub para (a) of para 19 deserves to be modified. Accordingly it is modified and it is directed the appellant (O.P.) will pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs) to the respondent (complainant) within 45 days from the date of this order. The appellant (O.P.) will also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.13,00,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.09.2015 till realisation to the complainant. The remaining part of the impugned order is affirmed. With above modification, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
06/07/2017 06/07/2017 06 /07/2017