State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sagarkumar L. Dankhra vs Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. ... on 12 May, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 12 05 2022
Date of filling 07 06 2013
Duration 05 11 08
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-3
Complaint NO. 65 of 2013 Dt: 12.05.2022
Sagarkumar Lavjibhai Dankhara
Ratnamani Apartment,
B/H. Bhadra Hospital
Kim, Tal: Olpad,
Surat. ...Complainant
Vs.
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
510, 5th Floor, 21 Sanctuary
Business Center,
Near Waltrade Center,
Beside Udhna Gate,
Ring Road, Surat. ...Opponent
Appearance: Mr. S. G. Shah, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant
Mr. S. C. Shah, Ld. Advocate for the Opponent
Coram: (Shri S. N. Vakil, Judicial Member)
(Smt. J. Y. Shukla, Member)
Order by Shri S.N. Vakil, Judicial Member
1. This is for insurance claim in respect of vehicle stolen.
2. The complainant - Sagarkumar Lavjibhai Dankhara has filed this complaint against the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., that his Tipper AMW 2518 TP BS III bearing registration No. GJ 05 AU 6948, was insured with the opponent vide policy No. VOC0093395000100 for the period from 31.03.2011 to 30.03.2012 K.S.P CC-13-65 Page 1 of 7 with IDV Rs. 23.56 lakhs. The insurance company gave only a schedule and no terms and conditions were given. On 20.09.2011 at about 23:00 the vehicle was forcibly taken away. The complaint was given with Zagadiya Police Station being First Crime Registration No. 148 of 2011 IPC Sections 392, 342, 411, 506(2) B.P.Act, 135. The insurance company was also intimated, which appointed inquiry officer. The original documents were given with the original claim form by the complainant. The insurance company has not paid up the amount. The truck has not been found, thus the insurance company is liable to pay the IDV of Rs. 23.56 lakhs, which has not been paid. For this deficiency he claims the amount with 18% interest from the date of theft 22.09.2011 till realization, Rs. 1 lakh towards mental pain and Rs. 50,000/- towards costs.
3. The defense vide written version is of denial. The claimant has suppressed the material facts. Policy was insured subject to terms and conditions which governs this claim. After the claim was made on 24.09.2011 with the respondent, it had sought for various claim documents including Original Non-traceable Certificate from the complainant vide its various letters dated 01.11.2011, 20.12.2011, 01.02.2012, 05.03.2012, 16.04.2012, 24.04.2012, 11.08.2012, 09.10.2012, 02.01.2013, 14.02.2013, 03.10.2013 and 27.11.2013 however the complainant failed to produce Original Non-traceable Certificate as the said document was vital to prove that the vehicle K.S.P CC-13-65 Page 2 of 7 has not been traced and until now otherwise the complainant would make unlawful gain by gaining the sum insured even though the vehicle has been traced by the police. The complainant did not submit and produce the Original Non-traceable Certificate as sought for nor did the complainant revert to the query on such Non-production. Verification of Non-traced certificate is mandatory for the respondent to ascertain that the vehicle has not been traced. The complainant without submitting the claim documents as sought for is a pre-mature one. The respondent has every right to seek for such documents under the terms of the policy. There is no negligence or deficiency in services. Compliance of the terms and conditions of policy is condition precedent for entertaining the claim. The complainant had and has contractual obligation to intimate the claim to the insurer. The condition in this regard is reproduced.
4. Heard Advocate Shri S. G. Shah, for the complainant and Shri S. C. Shah, for Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. The theft of vehicle is alleged to be on 20.09.2011 at 23:00 and later in complaint, it was pleaded to be on 22.09.2011 but police papers clearly show the theft to be on 20.09.2011. The complaint being First Crime Registration No. 148 of 2011 was lodged with the Zagadiya Police Station, and Panchnama was carried out on 23.09.2011. The theft was reported to the police station on K.S.P CC-13-65 Page 3 of 7 22.09.2011 at 18:30 hours, and the insurance company received theft claim form on 24.09.2011. The complainant informed Shree Ram Transport Finance Co, Ltd. on 26.09.2011. By letter dated 01.11.2011 the insurance company informed the complainant that the claim will be registered on receipt of copy of FIR, duly filled and signed claim form, copy of written complaint or statement given to police and also asked for original registration certificate, original fitness certificate (if the document is separate), in case of unregistered vehicle, original temporary registration certificate, a set of vehicle ownership form No. 28, 29 and 30, a set of NOC forms duly signed and stamped by the financier and form 35, original and duplicate keys, vehicle owner's manual along with service, warranty or extended warranty coupons certificate, toolkit, if any separately available, original insurance policy and certificate, letter of subrogation, letter of RTO on safe custody of vehicle file, copy of photo ID proof; so also by letter dated 20.12.2011, 01.02.2012, 05.03.2012. The complainant gave insurance company one key of the truck along with letter dated 15.03.2012. The insurance company by its letter dated 16.04.2012 asked for Final report under Section 173 Crpc from the court, Original second ignition key and cabin of the vehicle, Copy of consignment Challan. By its letter dated 25.04.2012 the insurance company pursuant to the claim form writes that case has been charge sheeted and it has not been K.S.P CC-13-65 Page 4 of 7 declared as 'untraced' as the matter is still under investigation and therefore processing of the claim can happen only upon the case is finally closed as vehicle untraced by the police and the same is recorded under the final report under Section 173 CRPC from court duly mentioned the case as untraced, and also asked for documents as Original Non Traceable Certificate from the police authorities, Original Second Ignition Key of the vehicle, Copy of Consignment Challan. Reiterating the same asked for original non- traceable certificate from police authorities by its letter dated 11.08.2012, 09.10.2012, 02.01.2013, 14.02.2013, 03.10.2013, 27.11.2013. The complainant applied to the police for the said certificate on 17.07.2012 which police gave him on 19.07.2012 and the complainant has produced the said certificate along with the compliant (page-43). It does not bear any stamp of the insurance company which could go to show that the certificate was given to the insurance company. During the course of argument the complainant has produced the copy of the said certificate which bears stamp of the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and endorsement of receipt with signature dated 21.07.2012. It is clear that the insurance company unduly went on asking original non-traceable certificate even after 21.07.2012. Therefore, it is also clear from above that both police and the insurance company were informed of the theft but he insurance company 3 days later in K.S.P CC-13-65 Page 5 of 7 time. When the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine the insurance company could not repudiate the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the insurance company vide Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., II (2022) SLT 119 (SC). It is however clear that there was breach of condition to intimate immediate. Hence for late intimation to the insurance company, as held in Jaina Contruction Company's case (Supra) also the claim was ordered to be paid on non-standard basis and where there was delay of 5 months and it was not disturbed in appeal by the Apex Court. Therefore, the IDV amount deserves to be reduced to 75%. For the reason stated the claim deserves to be allowed but with deduction on non-standard basis.
6. Normally the 7% interests is being granted from the date of complaint. However after the matter is heard, claimant's advocate came in the chamber, with whom the complainant or his representative also came in and asked me to do favour. He was driven out and his advocate also rebuked. Therefore it is a fit case to reduce the rate of interest which we consider it proper at the rate of 3% from the date of complaint; and he would also be not entitled anything towards mental pain and costs, for the reason stated.
7. Accordingly, the compliant deserves to be partly allowed, for which following order is passed.
K.S.P CC-13-65 Page 6 of 7
FINAL ORDER
i) Complaint No. 65 of 2013 is partly allowed.
ii) The Opponent - Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. do pay the claimant 75% of the IDV of Rs. 23,56,000/- that is Rs. 17,67,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs sixty-seven thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 3% (three percent) from the date of complaint 07.06.2013 till realization.
iii) No order as to mental pain and costs.
iv) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 12th day of May, 2022.
(J.Y.Shukla) (S.N.Vakil)
Member Judicial Member
K.S.P CC-13-65 Page 7 of 7