State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Companylimited vs Jaswant Rai Verma on 30 September, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/215/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/08/2015 in Case No. CC/354/2014 of District DF-I) 1. United India Insurance CompanyLimited Regional Office, SCO No. 123-24,Sector 17-B, Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Jaswant Rai Verma S/o late Sh. Achhru Ram, r/o H.No. 3209, Sector 44D, Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh PRESIDENT DEV RAJ MEMBER PADMA PANDEY MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 215 of 2015 Date of Institution : 03.09.2015 Date of Decision : 30.09.2015 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh now through Ms. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. ......Appellant/Opposite Party. Versus Jaswant Rai Verma S/o Late Sh. Achhru Ram, R/o House No.3209, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. .....Respondent/Complainant. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. D. P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. First Appeal No. : 230 of 2015 Date of Institution : 14.09.2015 Date of Decision : 30.09.2015 Shri Jaswant Rai Verma, Aged about 69 years S/o Late Shri Achhru Ram, Resident of House no.3209, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh U.T. ......Appellant/Complainant. Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO no.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/Opposite Party. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh. Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. D. P. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
This order shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.215 of 2015 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party and 230 of 2015 filed by the appellant/complainant Party, against the order dated 06.08.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in Short District Forum), vide which, it allowed consumer complaint bearing No.354 of 2014, filed by the complainant, qua the Opposite Party, and directed it as under: -
"8. For the reasons recorded above, we dispose of the present Complaint with a direction to the Opposite Party to process the claim of the Complainant and to take a decision for the payment of the IDV of the vehicle, subject to the Complainant fulfilling all the pre-requisite formalities, as per the terms & conditions of the policy, within a period of 30 days, from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,24,000/- being the IDV of the vehicle, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of original claim i.e. 25.04.2013, till the date of realization, besides paying a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of proceedings."
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got his Mahindra Bolero/SLE Jeep bearing Regn. No.CH-01-AH-2250 duly insured with the Opposite Party vide cover note no.26102 for the period 26.4.2012 (infact 27.4.2012) to 26.4.2013 by paying a premium of Rs.14,400/- with an IDV of Rs.5.24 lac (Annexure C-2 & C-3). It was stated that during the currency of the said Policy, the vehicle, in question, was stolen in the early hours of 14.12.2012 and necessary intimation to that effect was given to the Opposite Party on the same day vide letter dated 14.12.2012 (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that it was only after having made extraneous efforts by the complainant, the Police lodged FIR about the theft of the aforesaid vehicle on 11.03.2013 (Annexure C-8). It was further stated that the complainant sent copy of FIR to the Opposite Party on 14.3.2013 vide letter (Annexure C-9) requesting it to settle his claim. It was further stated that the complainant was informed by the Opposite Party to submit No Trace Report for setting the claim. It was further stated that thereafter, the complainant exchanged protracted correspondence with the Police Authorities seeking copy of No Trace Report, but no such report was supplied to him till date (Annexures C-11 to C-18), as a result whereof, he could not submit the said document to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that faced with this situation, the complainant issued a final reminder to the Opposite Party vide letter dated 21.3.2014 (Annexure C-19) stating therein that he was fed up with the non-cooperation of the Police Department and further that even the Opposite Party was not settling his claim despite the passage of 16 months from the accrual of his claim and 12 months from the registration of FIR in this regard.
3. It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed, claiming various reliefs.
4. The Opposite Party, in its written statement, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, stated that upon receiving intimation of theft, an Investigating Agency was deputed who submitted its report with the remarks that the factum of theft could not be considered as a genuine case because the Police had not provided the untrace report (Annexure R-3). It was stated that moreover, there had been a delay of three months in giving intimation to Police as the intimation to Police for the first time was given on 11.03.2013, which was very much evident from the copy of FIR. It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was still pending with it for compliance of the claim formalities on the part of the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, both the Opposite Party and the complainant, have filed the instant appeals.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the Opposite Party (appellant in First Appeal bearing No.215 of 2015), submitted that there was delay in lodging FIR, which was breach of Policy condition but the District Forum did not consider this important fact. He further submitted that delay in intimation to the Police was fatal to the claim and claim was liable to be repudiated on that ground. In support, the Counsel placed reliance on New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 09.12.2009. He further submitted that the District Forum did not give any finding with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It was stated that the reliefs granted by the District Forum were self-contradictory as on one hand, the Opposite Party was directed to process the claim of the complainant and at the same time, the District Forum directed the Opposite Party to pay the amount of IDV of the vehicle. He further submitted that the District Forum further erred in directing payment of interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim and as per settled law, interest could not be awarded from the date of lodging of the claim and the Opposite Party needed reasonable time to process the claim. He further submitted that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to interest amounted to awarding double compensation, which was not permissible under the Act. He further submitted that the District Forum erred in not giving any direction to the complainant to transfer the certificate of registration in the name of the Opposite Party and to execute other required papers, if the claim for theft was found payable.
10. The Counsel for the complainant, (appellant in First Appeal bearing No.230 of 2015), submitted that as per Condition No.1 of the Policy, notice in writing was duly accorded to the Opposite Party - Insurance Company on the date of theft vide Annexure C-4 through speed post and the Police was also duly informed by a relative of the complainant. He further submitted that submission of untraced report was not necessary. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the denial of claim of the complainant by the Opposite Party amounted to not only grave deficiency in service but also a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and the complainant being a Senior Citizen, was liable to be awarded exemplary compensation by enhancing compensation of Rs.25,000/- already awarded by the District Forum.
11. It is evident that the complainant got his Mahindra Bolero SL X Jeep bearing Regd. No.CH-01-AH-2250 insured vide Private Car Package Policy No.1122003112P000189817 of the Opposite Party, effective for the period from 27.4.2012 to 26.04.2013, and paid premium of Rs.14,397/-. Under the said Policy, the IDV of the vehicle, in question, was Rs.5,24,000/-. As is evident from letter dated 14.12.2012 (Annexure C-4), the said vehicle got stolen on the early morning of 14.12.2012 from the brother's house of the complainant i.e. Kothi No.542, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar (Pb.) and due intimation was given to the Opposite Party by the complainant. Intimation of theft was also given by the complainant to the S.H.O, City Police Station (Old Anaj Mandi) Ropar (Pb.) vide letter dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure C-5).
12. The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was delay on the part of the complainant (appellant in First Appeal No.230 of 2015) in lodging FIR. The contention of the Opposite Party (appellant in First Appeal No.215 of 2015) that there was delay in lodging FIR, is not on sound footing. The intimation regarding occurrence of theft of vehicle, in question, was given to the Opposite Party by the complainant vide letter dated 14.12.2012 (Annexure C-4). The complainant also wrote to SHO, City Police Station, Ropar, P.I.O-cum-Sr. Superintendent of Police, Roopnagar, and Sr. Suptt. of Police, Ropar vide letters dated 17.12.2012, 26.12.2012 and 31.1.2013 respectively (Annexures C-6 to C-7) and finally, the FIR was registered on 11.3.2013 (Annexure C-8). The complainant promptly submitted copy of FIR to the Opposite Party on 14.3.2013 (Annexure C-9). The complainant also wrote to the SHO, Police Station City, Roopnagar for non-traceable report of the vehicle, in question. The complainant alongwith his appeal has brought in evidence, the postal receipts (Annexure A-2) of letters dated 14.12.2012, 17.12.2012, 26.12.2012 and 31.1.2013 by way of additional evidence. He also placed on record postal receipts with regard to letters (Annexures C-9, C-11, C-12 and C-19) sent to the Opposite Party and the Police Authorities. Thus, it is clearly evident, on record, that the complainant duly intimated the Opposite Party and the Police Authorities vide the aforesaid letters. The Opposite Party has brought in evidence investigation report dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure R-3) in respect of the vehicle, in question, submitted by Shadow Technical Advisors and Investigators Private Limited. Paras 50 and 51 of the aforesaid report, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-
"50. The said MHC after checking his Police Station record revealed to our rep. that on dated 14/12/2012, they got information regarding theft of above mentioned Bolero Vehicle No.CH01-AH-2250 through their control room No.100 and afterwards one person namely Mr. Balwinder Kumar S/o Sh. Sarup Chand, R/o #542, Giani Jail Singh Nagar also came their police for lodging his complaint regarding theft of above mentioned Bolero vehicle.
51. That said MHC also told to our rep. that during their inquiry from spot and other places and after checking the Police Station record, they came to know that last year on dated 23/02/2011, one other Bolero vehicle of Mr. Balwinder Kumar bearing Registration No.PB56-H(T)-8864 has also been stolen from car parking shed of Balwinder Kumar house, whose information they (Police) registered at their Police Station on dated 25/02/2011 in FIR No.35/11 U/s379 IPC. But now further after about one & half year of said incident of theft of Bolero vehicle, Complainant Balwinder Kumar came to their Police Station and told them that his another Bolero vehicle No.CH01-AH-2250 has been stolen by unknown persons from outside of his house i.e. #542, Giani Jail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar. Due to which they have doubt on Balwinder Kumar Statement. Hence they started their investigation deeply regarding this incident of theft of Bolero Vehicle No.CH01-AH-2250 and didn't lodge the complaint of the Complainant Balwinder Kumar in FIR at their Police Station."
13. From the correspondence made with the Police Authorities by the complainant, it is apparent that the complainant made sincere efforts to lodge the FIR from the date of incident itself. Timely intimation to the Opposite Party was also given on 14.12.2012. The delay, if any, in registering the FIR cannot be attributed to the complainant. Despite efforts made by the complainant to get the FIR lodged from the date of theft, the Police Authorities registered the same (FIR) only on 11.03.2013 (Annexure C-8), which fact is corroborated by the contents of Paras 50 and 51 of the report of the Investigator appointed by the Opposite Party, extracted above. As soon as the FIR was registered, copy of same was immediately provided to the Opposite Party. The facts of the instant case, thus, being distinguishale, the law settled by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane's case (supra), is not applicable in the instant case.
14. Relevant part of Section I, of the Policy, in question, relating to "LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED", being relevant is extracted hereunder:-
"SECTION I - LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED.
1. The Company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and/or its accessories whilst thereon i. xxxxx;
ii. By burglary housebreaking or theft; iii. to x. xxxxx"
15. Further Condition 1 of the Policy, in question, being relevant, is also extracted hereunder:-
"1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence, which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender."
16. As discussed above, the complainant, on occurrence of incident of theft of his vehicle, immediately informed the Opposite Party and the Police Authorities vide letters dated 14.12.2012 and 17.12.2012 and, thus, duly complied with the requirement envisaged in Condition 1 of the Policy. However, as already held in the preceding para, the delay in registering FIR was attributable to the Police Authorities and not to the complainant as he had given timely intimation to the Police Authorities. Therefore, the alleged delay in the facts and circumstances of the instant case could not be said to be a violation of Policy condition and a ground for repudiating the claim of the complainant.
17. The District Forum, vide its order, in the first instance directed the Opposite Party to process the claim of the complainant and to take decision for the payment of the IDV of the vehicle, subject to the complainant fulfilling all the pre-requisite formalities, as per the terms & conditions of the Policy, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order and in failure to do so, directed it to pay the amount of Rs.5,24,000/- being the IDV of the vehicle alongiwth interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of original claim i.e. 25.4.2013 till actual payment. In our opinion, complainant is entitled to Rs.5,24,000/- being the IDV of the vehicle.
18. The question, now falls for consideration, is, as to whether the District Forum was right in allowing interest @12% per annum from the date of lodging the claim or not. While the Opposite Party has contended that in absence of submission of untraceable report, the claim could not be processed, the complainant has submitted that submission of untraced report was not mandatory.
19. It is evident from record that the Opposite Parties appointed Shadow Technical Advisors and Investigators Private Limited to investigate the matter. The Investigator report dated 30.07.2013 is at Annexure R-3. As per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder's Interests) Regulations, 2002), in special circumstances of the case, the Surveyor could take six months for submission of his report, from the date of his appointment. In the instant case, the Investigator submitted report on 30.7.2013, who in Para 51 of the report, specifically stated that since the Police doubted the theft of the vehicle, in question, therefore, it did not lodge the FIR at their Police Station. The Investigator further recorded in Para 53 of its report that till date the Police did not issue any untraced report. Under "Conclusion", the Investigator recorded that "...still Police investigation is going on and they (Police) also did not come on final decision regarding above mentioned incident of theft of Bolero Vehicle No.CH01-AH-2250......". However, the "Untraced Report" dated 05.12.2014 was received by the complainant on 11.12.2014, during the pendency of the complaint in the District Forum. Even on receipt of untraced report on 11.12.2014, during the pendency of complaint in the District Forum, the Opposite Party did not decide the claim. This itself also amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party. The District Forum, however, erred in awarding interest @12% per annum on the IDV of the vehicle in question from the date of lodging the claim, which it should have awarded after six months from the date of lodging the claim by the complainant (25.4.2013). The District Forum also erred in not directing the complainant to transfer the certificate of registration in the name of the Opposite Party and to execute other required papers, in case of payment of IDV by the Opposite Party. Thus, the impugned order needs modification, as indicated above.
20. First Appeal No.230 of 2015 filed by the complainant is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum. It is evident from record including the report of the Investigator that the complainant made sincere efforts to lodge the FIR from the date of incident of theft itself. He duly reported the incident of theft to the Opposite Party promptly. Despite the fact that no delay was attributable in lodging the FIR to the complainant, the Opposite Party failed to settle the claim for almost 2½ years. This definitely caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, who is a senior citizen. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the District Forum, in our considered opinion, is on the lower side and the same needs to be suitably enhanced. Compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, if granted, shall meet the ends of justice. To this extent, the impugned order also needs to be modified.
21. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
22. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing No.215 of 2015 and 230 of 2015 are partly accepted. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent as under:-
"The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs.5,24,000/- being the IDV of the vehicle, in question, to the complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum from 24.10.2013 i.e. the date six months after the date of filing of original claim till realization, besides payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- (instead of Rs.25,000/-) and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceedings. The complainant shall transfer the certificate of registration in the name of the Opposite Party and shall also execute other required papers."
23. Certified copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.230 of 2015.
24. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
25. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
September 30, 2015.
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT [DEV RAJ] MEMBER [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER Ad [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh] PRESIDENT [ DEV RAJ] MEMBER [ PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER