State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sri Ram Stone Crusher vs New India Assurance on 10 April, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. C/2013/120 1. M/s Sri Ram Stone Crusher a ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. New India Assurance a ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Virendra Singh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Jitendra Nath Sinha MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: ORDER RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW COMPLAINT CASE NO. 120 OF 2013 M/s Shri Ram Stone Crusher, through its partner Mr. Mor Mukut Agarwal, office situated at Vijai Nagar, Mohali Road, Mathura Complainant Versus New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Office situated at 2/214, Civil Lines, M.G. Road, in front of Nagar Palika, Agra U.P. (282002) Opposite party BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. J.N. SINHA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Sri Dhruv Kumar , Advocate For the Opposite party : Sri Ravi Kumar Rawat, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Agarwal, Advocate DATED:26.06.2015 JUDGMENT MR.JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party for not settling the claim of the complainant claiming following reliefs:-
To hold and declare the opposite party to be guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
To allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.21,58,154/- towards balance of indemnity /loss not paid by the opposite party with interest @ 14% p.a. from 09.09.2012 i.e. one month after submitting police charge sheet, till the date of actual payment.
-2-To award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental harassment suffered by the partners of the complainant firm, due to arbitrary and delay in settlement of claim.
To award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.
To award such other relief or reliefs which the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in interest of justice.
The complainant case is that the complainant M/s Shri Ram Stone Crusher had purchased a Truck from M/s Dada Motor Private Limited for Rs.22,71,741 and got it registered with RTO Gurgaon. The complainant had taken an insurance policy for the insurance of the aforesaid new vehicle from opposite party. The vehicle was insured for Rs.21,58,154/- and the insurance premium of Rs.35,432/- was paid to the opposite party. The policy was valid from 25.08.2011 to 24.08.2012.
On 18.10.2011 at about 10 p.m. while the aforesaid truck was going from Mathura to Chhata, it was looted by the criminals. The incidence of loot was reported to Police station, Chhata and a case under Section 392/342 I.P.C. was registered. The complainant vide letter dated 19.10.2011 informed the opposite party about the loss of aforesaid truck who informed the complainant that the claim shall be settled after final investigation by police authority. The police submitted charge sheet before the court on 10.05.2012. Thereafter the complainant informed the opposite party vide letter dated 09.08.2012 that the police has filed a charge sheet/final report against the accused and requested to pay the claim. The complainant kept on pursing the claim with the opposite party but no satisfactory reply was given. The complainant sent letter dated 25.11.2012 requesting the opposite party to pay the claim or else he shall be forced to approach the court. The complainant also filed a RTI application on 09.12.2013 but the opposite party did not furnish any reply to the application. On 20.03.2013 the complainant visited the office of the opposite party where he was verbally informed that one investigator namely Pandey has been deputed by the opposite party but the -3- Complainant has not submitted the required documents to the investigator therefore; the claim could not be settled. The complainant submitted a protest letter dated 22.03.2013 and informed the opposite party that neither someone Mr. Pandey nor any other investigator had ever approached the complainant and all the documents were already submitted. Thereafter the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint for the reliefs mentioned above.
The opposite party has filed written statement denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant. It is further stated that the opposite party appointed surveyor immediately after lodging of the claim and tried to settle the claim as soon as possible and the opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss of the insured according to the terms and conditions of the contract but the complainant himself not adhered to the terms and conditions of the contract. The amount prayed in the complaint is excessive, illegal and uncalled for to extract the money from the insurance company. The complainant is not interested in fair settlement of his claim. The complaint being baseless is liable to be dismissed with cost in favour of the opposite party.
The complainant has filed the following evidence/documents in support of its case:-
Annexure-1 Copy of sale certificate, invoice, temporary registration certificate, registration certificate and national permit. Annexure-2 Copy of insurance policy Annexure-3 Copy of police report Annexure-4 Copy of letter dated 19.10.2011 addressed to opposite party Annexure-5 Copy of Charge sheet Annexure-6 Copy of letter dated 09.08.2012 addressed to opposite party Annexure-7 Copy of letter dated 25.11.2012 addressed to opposite party Annexure-8 Copy of RTI application dated 09.02.2013.
Annexure-9 Copy of protest letter dated 22.03.2013 sent to opposite party by the complainant.
The complainant has also filed reply to the written statement filed by the -4- Opposite party denying the averments made therein and further stated that the complainant had already filed documents as Annexures 1 to 9 in support of the complaint case and in the interest of justice the documents filed with the complaint case may kindly be treated as evidence by this Commission.
The opposite party has also filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the contents of written statement and annexing following documents:-
Copy of Letter dated 08.04.2013 sent to Divisional Manager, Agra by Branch Manager, of opposite party Copy of Letter dated 21.12.2011 sent by M/s So Men Media Copy of Letter dated 27.1.2011 sent by M/s So Men Media to Regional Manager , New India Assurance Company Limited The complainant filed written arguments reiterating the contents made in the complaint and denying the contents made in the written statement filed by the opposite party. It is stated that the truck was looted on 18.10.2011 and the complainant has informed in writing to opposite party about the incident on 20.10.2011. All the required documents were submitted to opposite party by the complainant for settlement of the claim but no heed was paid. When the complainant did not receive any response from the opposite party regarding settlement of claim the complainant filed a RTI application on 09.02.2013 to furnish the information related to his claim but no reply was given. It is further contended that the opposite party has admitted in para 4 of the written statement that the information about the incident was received on 20.10.2011. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question has been looted which was insured with the opposite party as such the complainant is entitled to get the claim of the same amounting to Rs.21,58,154/- alongwith 14% p.a. interest from 09.09.2012 and the complaint is liable to be allowed.
Written arguments on behalf of the opposite party has also been filed stating therein that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Information about the alleged incident was received on 20.10.2011 and the opposite party without any delay deputed an investigator but the complainant did not cooperate with the surveyor and never provided the required papers. The complainant did not adhere to the conditions of the policy and as such no cause of action arose to -5- file this complaint. The claim of the complainant is excessive, illegal and uncalled for to extract the money from the insurer. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The present complaint being baseless, illegal and not maintainable is liable to be dismissed with costs in favour of the opposite party.
We have heard Sri Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Ravi Kumar Rawat, holding brief for Sri Sanjeev Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the entire records.
There is no dispute rather almost is admitted fact that the alleged truck was insured by the opposite party and the same is found looted by miscreants on 18.10.2011, the information of which was sent by the complainant to the opposite party vide letter dated 19.10.2011 which is admittedly received by the opposite party on 20.10.2011. The charge sheet was filed against the miscreants by the police and it stands proved that the truck was looted by the miscreants. The mere contention of the opposite party that without any delay the investigator was deputed but the complainant did not cooperate with the surveyor and never provided the required papers, is not acceptable unless it is proved as to what were the papers required and who was the surveyor by whom such type of papers were sought from the complainant while it is asserted by the complainant that none of the surveyor or investigator sought any papers from the complainant and the complainant has also filed the required papers with his claim. Not only this , the letter dated 08.04.2013 written by the Branch Manager to the Divisional Manager, revealed that the insured submitted papers like RC, DL, FIR copy and charge sheet copy but Mr. Pandey alleged investigator reported that since the insured not cooperated him therefore, he closed the claim but such type of report even of closure of the claim has not been given by the investigator to the Branch Manager also while as per the statement of the insured the investigator never contacted to the insured, he never came at the place of the insured and all the papers were deposited by the insured in the office but Mr. Pandey is saying that they have not received the documents. The entire scenario of the facts submitted by the opposite party shows that the ultimate motive of the opposite party seems to have been remained to repudiate the claim as there is no evidence as to which were the -6- papers to be furnished by the complainant to the opposite party. The Manager (Operation) of the opposite party wrote a letter dated 27.11.2011 to the Regional Manager of its office thereby concluding the fact that keeping in view the non cooperation of insured party, he is requested to instruct the insured party to cooperate and submit necessary documents and information as given in that letter and there are 15 nos. of papers mentioned in that letter to be furnished by the insured. List of papers sought is given below :-
Claim Form Copy of RC Copy of Policy Copy of purchase invoice/sale invoice, delivery receipt of subject vehicle, temporary registration certificate.
Copy of FIR and formal report to police, if any Meeting with the driver and helper Copy of DL of driver Copy of permit fitness, road tax and other documents pertaining the same Status of keys of vehicle Copy of partner ship deed and complete name and address of other partners Bank Account Statement of company M/s Sri Ram Stone Crasher Intimation of financer, loan account statement and letter of non repossession of vehicle from financer Intimation to concerned RTO about theft of vehicle Letter to police to record loss of original papers of vehicle and to record engine and chassis number of vehicle and to record the same in police final report.
Copy of R.C. and Insurance policy of other commercial vehicle Strange enough, that in a case of theft of a vehicle which was admittedly insured by the insurer opposite party, such type of documents have been made the requirement for the claim which have no relevance for the settlement of the claim. Copy of purchase invoice/sale invoice, delivery receipt of subject vehicle, Meeting with the driver and helper, Copy of DL of driver, Copy of permit fitness, road tax and other documents pertaining the same, Status of keys of vehicle , Copy of -7- partner ship deed and complete name and address of other partners, Bank Account Statement of company M/s Sri Ram Stone Crasher, Intimation of financer, loan account statement and letter of non repossession of vehicle from financer, Intimation to concerned RTO about theft of vehicle, Letter to police to record loss of original papers of vehicle and to record engine and chassis number of vehicle and to record the same in police final report, are such type of papers which have no relevance for settlement of the claim of the theft of the vehicle. Claim form, Copy of RC, Copy of policy, Copy of FIR could merely be said the relevant papers for this purpose and for which it cannot be said that such papers have not been furnished by the insured to the opposite party as is contended by the complainant. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that merely to harass the insured by the insurer such type of papers have been demanded which have no relevance for the claim settlement and if such type of papers even have not been furnished by the complainant to the opposite party, the opposite party cannot blame the complainant that the insured has not cooperated the investigator. A trend has been developed in such type of cases by the insurer merely for the sake of the repudiation of the claim that such type of papers should be demanded , which are not relevant for the purpose of claim and the insured should be blamed that the insured has not cooperated and therefore, the insurer has repudiated the claim of the insured. We condemn such type of behaviour on the part of the insurer invoking a device of demand of such type of papers merely to repudiate the claim on the allegation that the insured had not cooperated with the insurer for settlement of the claim. How a person can be disbelieved who has been writing regularly to the insurer to settle his claim for the theft of his vehicle , that he did not cooperate the insurer for settlement of the claim without furnishing relevant papers like Claim Form, Copy of RC, Copy of Policy and Copy of FIR. Hence we have come to this conclusion that the claim of the complainant has been deliberately denied by the opposite party for which this complaint deserves to be allowed for a claim to the tune of Rs.21,58,154/- for the sum assured by the insurer to the insured. Since the complainant has been wrongly denied the claim, the complainant is entitled to get interest on this amount at least @ 09% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of payment which shall be made by the opposite party to the -8- complainant within two months, failing which the rate of interest shall be calculated @ 18% p.a. A sum of Rs.15,000/- deserves to be allowed on litigation charges to the complainant looking into the entire facts and circumstances of this case.
ORDER The aforesaid complaint is hereby allowed. The opposite party is directed to make a payment to the tune of Rs.21,58,154/- alongwith interest @ 09% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of payment within two months failing which the interest shall be calculated @ 18% p.a. in place of 09% p.a. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is further allowed as litigation charges to the complainant.
(JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH) PRESIDENT (J.N. SINHA) MEMBER Asif -Steno-Court no.1 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Virendra Singh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Jitendra Nath Sinha] MEMBER