State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, National Insurance ... vs Sk. Wajuddin on 1 August, 2023
r-
1'' 1
S ATE COJ.{S TJMTJR Di SP UTE S RI]DRES SAL C OViIVII S SI ON,
ODISI]A. CLr']-,IACK
Fi_r"st Appeal 1\ o.723120X2
(Frorn an order dated 18.06.2012 oasserl by the I)istLici
Consumer Disputcs Redressal Foi.tirn, Ilalasore in
Corrsu;lcr Dispute Casc No. 2Bl2008)
'j'ne Ilranch Managei,
National Insurance Co"Ltcl.,
-,/ir
raya I(unj l"[ospital Itoacl,
Ar/POlDist- Ralasore. Appelianr
\,/ersus-
i - Sl., Wajrrdclin, aged abo,-,t 59 years,
S/<i.Lr,rtc Vlirruddiri, Vi II-Pattran tr,lahal la,
PO/i,S. Soro, Dist- i]alasol.e.
2- TlieCollection Manager,Coljection,Agenol,,
iCICI Banl<. Niliabag, I,O/Dist-Llalasorc.
' :]- T'he lvlanager, IC-ICI llank Ltcl.,
[Jinang Plaza,Seconci Fio,tr, plotNo. 1320,
i]airakabati Rorid,'frlvn/f; i st-Crrttack.
I?.esponilents
coLinsci tbr the Appcllalt- Sri B.N.Udgata & Associiites.
(--ounsel for tlte I?-csponcleni No. 1-Sri ltakesh Sal-rtr &
Asr;ociltes
Coulnrscl lbr tltc Ilcspondent Nc.2&3- ].jor-ro
l'.ltlisENIT :- - sri i"liliip I(rrmar Mohairltr.ir, l\4cnrbcr..
!lri [ [eilr:rnt I(urrral' Iviuhant3r, Mr:lrrber,
i,,^Ji'I;l oF [ItiAlili,qc-{}1 . a5. 2023
IIdLli oF OllluL {il. 08. 2$23
2
ORDER
This appeal arises out of an order dated 18.06.2012 passecl by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forurn, Balasore in Consumer Conrplaint No. 2812008.
2- The case of the complinant is that he purchased a Bajaj Pulsar Motor Bike for Rs.56,8901- bearing Regn.No.OIt-0lt-1786 frorn M/s. Aclya Shakti Autornobiles, Balasore on dated 18.1.2006 by aviling Frnance lionr ICICI Bank Ltd. l'he ICICI Bank sanctioned the Loan and fini:u-rcecl Its.51,000/- in fbvour of the cornplainant for prcl-rase of Nzlotor cyole. l'ho said vehicle was insured with the opp.paty No.1 vicle policy No.1630051311051620000 5420 for the period fi orn 24.1 .2006 to 23.1.2007 orr paryrnent of premiurn of Rs.l,234l-. The vehicle was uncler hypothecatior-r with the Opp.Party No.2 and 3. It is alleged by the complainant that on 20'7.2006 at abor-rt 4.30 P.M while the vehicle was parked on the roaci sicle for purchase of betel frorn a shop at Utareswar Bajar of Soro, he for-rnd that rhe vehicle was stolen. The complainant lodged an FIR rvith the Soro Policc Statior-r on 20.7.2006 at about 9.30 P.M(P.S.Case No.18612006). The Policc conducted the investigation and accordingly subrlittcd its Final Report to [lic JN'{FC, Soro r,'idc FIR No. 18612006 correspor-rding to G.R.Case No.3 7412006 ivith a finding that'tl-re case is true but no clue'. After theft of the vehicle, Lht:
colnplainant intirnated the matter to the insurance company, wiro deputecl their investigator to investigate into the rnatter ancl the investigator vicle it:;
N. {'3 letter dt.28.6.2006 asked the complainant to submit the relevant docu*ents with keys of the vehicle for settlement of the claim. The cornplainant submitted the documents on 7 .8.2006 along with one key of the vehicle as the second key was retained by the financier. But the Insurance Company diil not settle the claim of the complainant for which the complainant filed the cornplainant before the leamed Forum below for reclressal of his grievances. 3- The Opp.Parly No.1 fi1ed its written version denying rhe allegation o1'the cornplainant atncl contended that tfte cortrplaipant clid ,ot cooperate the insurance company for settlernent of the clain-r and did r"rot stlpply the rclated docr-rments alongwith two keys ol'the vehicle. It is ftu.tirei. stated that the cornplainant lodged FIR after 6 hours of the, inciclelt. l'ho complainant was also not interested to proceed with the case as Final Form tvas accepted in Lok Adalat without any objection. Since the conrpltiinant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim has bcen repudiated.
4- After hearing the case, the learned Forr,rm below has passed the impugned order directing the Opp.Party No. i to pay the insurecl amoupt of I{s.54,455/- to the complainant ancl Rs,1000/- towards litigation cost wit6ir a periocl of one month from the date of receipt of the order, lbiling wliich 6% interest per annum shall be paid thereafter.
5- Challenging the irnpugr-red order of the learned Forunr belorv, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant./ 4
6- During the course of hearing, the counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Insurance Company has taken a specific stand before the learned Forum below to the effect that the complainant failed to subrnit both the keys of the insured motor vehicle in order to prove beyond any doubt that the vehicle was under lock and key and the complainant was not able to submit the same on the plea that one key was retained with the financier. It is also contended that the policy is a contract and parties are boun{ by the important conditions of such contract. But the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, but the learned Forum below without considering the contentions o1'the Appellant has passed the order directing the Appellant to pay Rs.54,455/- as sum insured alongwith Rs.1000/- towards litigation cost which is illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in the eyes of law, as such the same is liable to be set aside.
7- The counsel on behalf of the Respondent No.l subrnittecl that alter theft on 20.7.2006 at about 5.30 p.M, on the same day at about 9.30 P.M, the complainant lodged FIR and on 24.7.2006 intimatecl tlie Appellanr. On the basis of FIR lodged by the complainarnt, the police invcstigutecl intir the matter and submitted its Final Form in G.R Case No.3l4l2)06, corretrponcling to P.S Case No.1B6|20OG l_.,efor.e .llvllrc, Solo on 0,1.11.2(:07 stating "No clue". On 26.11.2007, the Responclent No.l/Complainant duly sr-rbmitted original certified copies of police final investigation report in pS Casc No.1B6/06, GR Case No.37412006 and original C.Cl cf I{.C.Book uirir t/5 tl-relt cndorselrent before the Insurance Cornpany and rerninded the Appellant that duplicate key ancl original cash memo is with the financier. 6spite of strbrnission of all doctrnrents, the insurance cornpan),has not setllecl tle claim. 8- We have heard learned counsel appearir-rg on bel-ralf o1'both Ll-rc parties, perused the Appeal menro, DFR ar-rd Written Notes o1' Subrnission liled on behalf of both the parties.
9- Admittedly, the vehicle was stolen on 20.7.2006 cluring rhc policy period and on the same day the r:ornplainant has lodgecl IIIR beforc Soro Police Station vide P.S.Case No.18612006 ancl there atter intimatecl rhc Insltrance colnpany/Appellant. On24.7.2006, the Appellal1 issr,red the clrrim lbrnl to the corlplainant. On 28.7.2006, the Appellar-rt asl<ecl the colrpllinant to lurnish relevant docutnents for settlement o1' claim. Accorclinglv, on 7.8.2006, the complainant submittcd the docun-rents such as Oliginal polici, coPY, xerox copy of DL, Copy of FIR, Qr-rotation of vehicle on clate ol loss, xerox copy of purchased receipt and duly signed claim form. On 11.8.2006, the Appellant demanded by its letter No.16300544ot CI/SNII/NKM/6 19,t2006 to Respondent No.1/Complainant to submit cluplicate key, certiliecl copy oI IL.C.book with thelt endorsement therein, orisinaI r:ash nrenro ancl 1,olic,:
investigation report,etc. On 26.9.2006, the Responclcnt No. I replied that ppe key is with financier and requested the Appellant to collect the docurnents tilficially and stated that no ir-rtimation has been given to hirn about tlie visit of the investigator. On 22.11.2007, tl-re Appellant intirnated the conrplainent 6 that tlrey are going 1o close the clainr llle if docurnents rnenlionecl in letter clt.
11'8'2006 is not submitted and asked the the Itespor-rclent No.l/conrpleri,ant to collect dr'rplicate key lrom financier even thoLrgh the xcl.ox certiliecl cop1, of police Final Investigation Iteport and xerox C.C of R.C.Book u,irh thelt endorsetnent has been submitted before the Appellant Lrsurance cornpany.
Ott 26'11.2007, the Itespondent No.1 sent Advocatc,s Notice vicle No.3 g3107 to the Appellant submitting the original certifiecl copies of police Firal Investigation Report in P.S.case No. 18612006, G.li.case No.37112006 trr-rcl ol'iginal C'C' of'R.C'Book with theft enclorsement ancl rernindec] the Appellrnt that duplicate key and original cash merro is with the linancier.
I0- We find fioln Final F'ortn subrnitte<l by the I.O stating t6at ,, FRi.
Ito cltte"' Frotn the above Final Fonn, it is clear tlrat the flict of rheli is ti.ue but there is no clue.
t 1- cour-rsel lor the Respondent/complainant citecl rhc judgment/order passed in a similar cases i.e. in First Appcal, No.5 12021 i, ('ase o1' United India Insurance Co.Ltci.
M's. Sur-incier Singlr by Slate Conlmission, Punjab ancJ Chancligarhrwherein Flon'ble State Clorrrlnission taking into consideration the juclgrlent passed by Hon'ble Alrex Cour.t i, crrsc 01' Manieet Singh Vrs. National Insurance Co.Ltcl. ancl anothcr. i1 (20tg) 2SCC 108: AII{ 2017 SC 5795 :(2018) 1 CPJ has passed older dir-ecting Lhe Insttrance colnpany to settle the clairr-r uncler nor-r-stanclarcl basis.
12- In case of Manjeet Singh vrs. National Insurance cornpa'y Lid., t.
ti 7 the lfon'ble Apex Courl has held that:-
-
"ln the present cqse, the Appelrant whc.t i.:; the o,,vnet.
,1ilos,ttor ar.
./ault . Itis clriver gat,e q ttft to some possengers. Carrytirlg su.ch pa,tsengcrs, may be a breach of the policy, but it can not be said to be srrch a.fitclamental breaclt as to b'ittg lhe instu'ence policy to an encl qnd to terruinqle the Insuranc Policy. The driver on a cord wintery night, gave tift to .some persons standing on lhe road. It was a lumtanitcrrictt gesture. It can not bc said to be such a brech that it nullifies the policy.
l\to tlotbt, tltese ptt,ss€t1{fc(s, lurned ctgainsl lhe drit'er ancl stc-tle the truck, btil this the clrivet. cotrld trct lrcrttc./breseen. In the coses citecl ctbove, such clctints.yvhere ilrcre is bterac,li of 1'to/ic\', ltave been treatecl to be non-stanclarcl clainrs ancl lruve, bee,u clire:cteci tt.t be settled at 750.,6,, (pcn.as 7 and 9).
13- Furtlier, counsel for the Respondent/cornplainant citccl 3 cler:isio, reported in Civil Appeal No.4071/22 in case of Gr-rrmel Singh vrs. BrarrcS I"zIanager, National Insurance Cornpany Ltcl.
cleciclecj on 20.5.2022 rvlterein tlre llon'ble Apex court has clearly held at para
4.r that:-
"[n the present cese, the insttrqnce cotl?pqny has t,acomc to() technical while settling the claint and has actecl arbitrat'ily.The appclltmr l"'as been aslced to fltrnish the 6 crocttntents which ,t,ere be7,6rr1 trtrt cotttt.<tr a./ lhe appellant to procure and furnish. once, lhere )ucts a vcrlid irt.ytu.onc:e on X", j-I.il$IE-Til : {"[{r..re-i:{ (r
-]l_ ,i, ,, ttl':' 8 porvtrtent of huge sutn by walt of preil.tilun ancl lhe Tr.uck tvos ,:.tctleit, iha insurance compctny otght not to have beconte too technic:al and ottgli pot lo hqtte refitsecl tct seltle the claim /br non-subtnission of tlte clt.tplic,rt., certifiecl copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant r.:ottld ,ot procluce due to the cirurmstances beyoncl his control. ln nrany cQSe-\" il is /bttnd that lhe instrrqnce companies (;re refu,s,itt5, ,1rc:
claim on Jlimsl' grounds and/or technical grotrncls. Wlile sertlitry tlte c'lairn'v, the in.curonce company shottlcl not be too tec'hrtical crrrtl asl:.fcr ,h,,, t/rtcrmrcnts, which the insurecl is not in a positioit to prctcltrce clue to c' ircultstcrnces beyoncl ltis control.,, l4 In the present case, altl-rorrgl-r the complainant iptiprarerl "he Insttfttnce Cornpany that the seconci key ol'the r,,elriclc is r,,,ith tlre Il,a:t;,ei,, same wars not accepted by the Insurance Company ancl repucliatecl llre clairn of cornplainant.
l5- In tl-re prcsent case the occurence took irlace <-tn20.7.2006 aric ip tlte ltrcan [imc, lnore than l5 yeals have elapsed. '.i'he filatLcier has llr'cr:cl' instittrtcd a suit against tlte uorrrplainant bef,ore C'ivil Jsclge. Scrni6r- l)ivisi r., Ilaleisore vicle C.S. No.1060120II for realisation o1' outstanciing ciue,; oi I{s.62,018/- as on 4.11.2011.
'''(>- Trrl<ing into consideration the ['IR, I)olice Final For.rn i n"l clocrtments so filed by complainarnt befbre tl-re lcarnecl Forum bel.v,, r,nrl 9 taking into consideration the citations, we are of considered view thrrl Lhc cornplainant is entitled to get the insured amount of vehiole alongwitlt cost of litigalion.
17- we find that the learned Irorum below has passecl irnp.grrecl order directing the insurance company to pay the insured amou,t of Its'54,455l- to cornplainant within one month from the date of r.eceipt of rhe said order and to pay Rs' 1,000/- towards litigation cost. It has further clirectecl that if the opp.Party No.l,Insurance Company fail to pay the said amorrnt, then Opp.Party No.1 shall pay interest @ 6%per annum thereafter, Flowe'er, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we mociil.v the order of learned Forum below clirecting the Appellant to pay the insurecl amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs.54,4551- to the cornplainant alongwith inter.est @ 6% per annurn fiom the date of filing of cornplaint i.e. 2g.oz.2o0B by rhc complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order alongwith Rs.30,000/- towards compensation ancl I{s.5,000/-
torvards cost of litigatiorlfailing which the entire surn shall carry inLerest @g%per anpunr till the clate of rcalisation of the said amount.
The appeal is disposed ol.with the above clirection. Costs as above.
Send back the DFR.
anty)
Mcnrber Mcntber