State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & ... vs Shiv Kumar Walia on 30 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2011
Date of Institution: 25.4.2011
Date of Decision: 30.7.2012
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Extension Counter Khamano,
District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager, Ludhiana.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO. 109-110-
111, Surindera Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, 160017, through
its Regional Manager.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional and Head Office A-
25/27, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through its
Chairman/Managing Director.
All the appellants through its authorized person/manager, Regional
Office, SCO. 109-110-111, Surindera Building, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh, 160017.
.....Appellants/OPs
VERSUS
Shiv Kumar Walia S/o Late Subhash Chander Walia R/o H. No. HL374,
Punjab Housing Board Colony, Jamalpur Awana, Ludhiana.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
against the order dated 14.3.2011
passed by the District Consumer
Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice, S.N. Aggarwal, President
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member
First Appeal No. 692 of 2011 Page 2 of 6
Present:
For the appellants : Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Amit Arora, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is an appeal against the order dated 14.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter called as "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent") was allowed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shiv Kumar, respondent purchased a Tata DI-207 vehicle on 30.8.2008 for Rs. 3,67,198/-. The respondent used this vehicle for earning his livelihood. The said vehicle was insured with the appellants/OPs (hereinafter called as "appellants") vide policy No. 233693/31/2009/78335 dated 10.9.2008 which was valid for the period 4.9.2008 to 3.9.2009 for IDV Rs. 3,96,338/-. It was pleaded by the respondent that the said vehicle, having Registration Certificate No. PB-10-CN-3094, was stolen on the night of 20.5.2009 when the same was parked outside the residence of the respondent. The report was lodged with the Police Station, Local Focal Point, Ludhiana and the FIR was registered on 10.6.2009 under Section 379 IPC by clubbing it with other vehicle No. PB-10-BF-3650 stolen on the same night. Thereafter, the respondent filed the insurance claim with the appellants and submitted the relevant documents. On 17.12.2009, the respondent received a letter from the appellants demanding untraceable report from the Ilaqa Magistrate for settlement of the claim. The said report was not supplied by the respondent. The respondent issued a legal notice dated 10.4.2010 to the appellants for settlement of the claim but still the claim was not finalized. First Appeal No. 692 of 2011 Page 3 of 6
3. Hence the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the appellants to pay Rs. 3,96,338/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
4. Upon notice, the appellants filed a written statement in which it was admitted that the claim was lodged by the respondent but pleaded that the respondent had not submitted certain documents including the untraceable report in respect of the vehicle, therefore, the claim could not be settled and hence the complaint was pre-matured.
5. It was further pleaded that on receipt of intimation of theft, the appellants deputed Sh. D.S. Chadha as investigator, who submitted his report but due to non-submission of untraceable report, the claim was not finalized.
6. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, accepted the complaint of the respondent directing the appellants to pay Rs. 3,96,338/- from the date of submission of the investigation report i.e. 13.11.2009 with 9% interest till realization. Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded as litigation charges to the respondent.
8. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants have come up in appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent was pre-matured because he had failed to supply certain documents including the untraceable report due to which the claim of the respondent could not be settled.
10. It was further submitted that before the claim is disbursed under the policy, the registration certificate of the vehicle is required to be transferred by the owner/insured in the name of the insurance company and execution First Appeal No. 692 of 2011 Page 4 of 6 of other documents like Affidavit, Indemnity Bond and letter of subrogation in favour of the company are also mandatory. The keys of the stolen vehicle are also required to be handed over to the appellants. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, thoroughly perused the evidence on record and considered the submissions.
13. The admitted facts of the case are that the vehicle No. PB-10-CN- 3094, which was purchased by the respondent for Rs. 3,67,198/- was insured for IDV Rs. 3,96,338/- by the appellants and the said insurance cover was valid from the period 4.9.2008 to 3.9.2009. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle of the respondent was stolen on the night of 20.5.2009 and FIR No. 144 dated 10.6.2009 was registered at PS Focal Point, Ludhiana u/s 379 IPC. The FIR was, however, clubbed with the theft of another vehicle No. PB-10-BF-3650, which was stolen on the same night.
14. The respondent filed the insurance claim but the same was not settled by the appellants. The appellants appointed one Sh. D.S. Chadha as investigator, who submitted his report (Ex. R-2), in which it was concluded by the investigator that the theft case of vehicle No. PB-10-CN-3094 as per FIR No. 144 dated 10.6.2009 u/s 379 IPC PS Focal Point, Ludhiana was found correct. It was further recommended by the investigator that the claim case may be processed further as per terms and conditions of the policy.
First Appeal No. 692 of 2011 Page 5 of 6
15. The appellants have contended that the respondent had failed to submit the untraceable report from the Ilaqa Magistrate, which was demanded on 17.12.2009 (Ex. C-8). Therefore, the claim could not be settled. The investigator has established that the case of theft of the insured vehicle was found to be correct. It has also been stated in the report that despite the efforts put by the Police to trace the vehicle, the recovery was not affected till that date i.e. 11.10.2009. The Police has also submitted untraceable report to the Civil Court on 13.11.2009, which has been proved by the respondent as Ex. C-6, but the same has not been approved by the court. Therefore, non-submission of approved report is not a valid ground for not processing the claim of the respondent because more than one year had already passed after the submission of the same. Therefore, the claim should have been settled by the appellants.
16. The appellants have further contended that before the claim amount is disbursed, ownership of the vehicle is required to be transferred in the name of the appellants and other documents like Indemnity Bond and letter of subrogation in favour of the appellant company are to be executed. Further, the keys of the vehicle are also to be deposited with the appellants. We find merit in these contentions because before the claim is disbursed, the respondent must indemnify the appellants by transferring the ownership of lost vehicle in the name of the appellants so that the appellants can claim back the vehicle if same is recovered subsequently.
17. In view of the above discussions and findings, the appeal of the appellants is partially accepted and the respondent is directed to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the appellants and submit the Indemnity Bond and letter of subrogation alongwith keys of the vehicle. First Appeal No. 692 of 2011 Page 6 of 6 The appellants are directed to disburse the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 3,96,378/- within one month from the date of submission all these documents/transfer of the ownership, failing which the above claim amount will carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of submission of the documents by the respondent till its realization.
18. The appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount alongwith interest, if any, be remitted to the respondent after 45 days, under intimation to the appellants and the District Forum, as interim payment which is adjustable towards the final claim of the respondent.
19. The arguments were heard on 25.7.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER July 30, 2012 VINAY