State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Co. vs Nirmal Singh And Others on 19 April, 2022
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.427 of 2018 Date of Institution:28.03.2018 Date of Decision:19.04.2022 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., LIC Building, Ambala City, through its Branch Manager. 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office at Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director. Now through Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. .....Appellants Versus Nirmal Singh aged 30 years S/o Shri Lachman Dass, R/o Village Kulchandu, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. .....Respondent CORAM: Mr. S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Ram Avtar, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, counsel for the respondent. ORDER S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2018, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short "DCDRF") in Consumer Complaint No.150 of 2016, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Ambala City (hereinafter referred to be as "appellant") has come up with the present appeal.
2. Facts put forth by the complainant/respondent and that of present appellants/then opposite parties in brief goes like that the complainant has alleged himself to be bona-fide resident of Village Kalchandu, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. Further, the complainant has alleged that he being registered owner of Tata Indigo ECS car bearing registration No.HR-02-AE-4410 got the same financed from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Jagadhri and thereafter got it insured vide policy No.121500/31/2015/01/50009933, having its validity from 12.07.2014 to 11.07.2015. However, unfortunately his above said car stood robbed on 03.12.2014 near Pyayu Maniyari Pul, near Kundli Border, District Sonepat for which a full fledge FIR No.360 dated 03.12.2014 under Section 395/397 IPC was registered with the Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat. Following this development, complainant also duly informed about this development to the opposite parties as well. Not only this, even thereafter, present respondent/then complainant also submitted all the requisite documents including untraceable report 25.04.2015 prepared by the police as the said car could not be recovered or traced till date. But, still concerned officials of the appellants/then opposite parties (insurance company) have not sanctioned or released the claim amount qua his said vehicle. Whenever complainant used to visit the office of appellants/opposite parties (insurance company), its officials used to make lame excuses and finding the above said lackadaisical approach on their part, complainant was instrumental in getting a legal notice served upon the present appellants/then opposite parties on 05.02.2016, but even their having received the same, his request was not heeded at all. Further, the complainant has also averred that since his above said car was hypothecated with Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., the said financial company has been sending repeated notices to complainant to deposit the unpaid installments, which was a direct result of his car having been robbed by some unscrupulous and unknown persons. This is how, when no such headway was made in this regard, then present respondent/then complainant was left with no other alternative except to take recourse to the DCDRF with this complaint because despite himself being consumer of present appellants/then opposite parties (insurance company) later have not rendered any services towards him and their above said attitude can also very well alleged to be unfair trade practice. This is how, present respondent/then complainant requested the DCDRF comprising of insured value alongwith a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by way of compensation for being subjected to mental and physical harassment.
3. On the other hand, present appellants/then opposite parties have assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability and have also alleged that they were not deficient in their services towards the respondent/ then complainant rather this complaint has been filed only with an oblique motive to tarnish their clean image. Likewise, opposite parties have also alleged that the complainant has filed the complaint to take undue advantage by abusing the process of law because despite of his having obtained private car policy package, he has been using the same very car as Taxi, which fact has abundantly been clear from the statement of one Mr. Puneet Batra, who had hired his services while travelling from New Delhi to Ambala City. Not only this, but the above said fact stands duly established when said occupant of this car has also got registered FIR with the local police on account of his having been deprived of his cash and other valuables at the ill-fated moment. Therefore, when present respondent/then complainant himself happened to be willful defaulter and has breached the terms and conditions of the policy, so he was not entitled for any such relief. Moreover, the present respondent/then complainant has also failed to provide untraced report duly accepted by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate despite repeated request and it was virtually for these reasons that his claim could not be processed. Besides this other averments of the complaint were also denied and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. After completion of the pleadings, both the parties were asked to lead evidence in support of their contentions and after going through various documents, learned DCDRF while relying upon what was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2008, titled as "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal" directed the present appellants/then opposite parties to pay up a sum of Rs.3,64,800/- (Rs. Three lakhs sixty four thousand eight hundred only) being 75% of the Insured Declared Value of the car on non standard basis alongwith interest to be charged at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of this complaint till realization alongwith a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) on account of litigation charges, mental harassment and agony alongwith cost of litigation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant obtained private car policy package whereas, he has been using the vehicle as taxi. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant is not entitled for claim amount. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as "B.V. Nagaraju Vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." 1996 SCC (5), 1971.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that complainant being registered owner of the vehicle, which has been insured upto 11.07.2015 with the O.Ps. Unfortunately, the car stood robbed on 03.12.2014 and on the same day FIR was registered. Claimant submitted the claim with the opposite parties/appellants, which has been wrongly refused by the opposite parties/appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal" IV (2008) CPJ 1 (S.C.).
7. It is not disputed that on 03.12.2014, the vehicle got involved in this incident. It is not disputed that the vehicle stood robbed on 03.12.2014. It is also not disputed that on 03.12.2014 FIR was also registered. Perusal of Annexure R-3 reveals that vehicle in question was booked as a taxi and at the time of incident he was returning from Delhi. Since, the vehicle was used as a taxi by the complainant despite that insurance company cannot reject the claim in toto or withhold the same. The case laid down by the respondent titled National Insurance company Vs.Nitin Khandelwal (supra) is applicable in the case in hand as the facts and circumstances of the present case is similar in nature. The appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft. The authority referred by the counsel for the appellant does not render any help to the appellant in any manner. Rather the same postulates that in order to fulfill the very purpose of enacting insurance law the adjudicating court can scale down or read down certain exclusion clauses which are not so fundamental in their nature. The learned District forum rightly allowed the claim of the complainant on non standard basis. The learned District Forum had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 13.02.2018. The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
S.C Kaushik S.P. Sood April 19th, 2022 Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl. Bench R.K.