State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co.Ltd. Through ... vs Shri Neeraj Kumar Mishra on 6 January, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/15/439
Instituted on : 18.09.2015
National Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Manager, Divisional Office,
Akashganga Complex, Supela,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.)
Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road,
Post & District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Shri Neeraj Kumar Mishra,
S/o Shri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
R/o : Mishra Sadan, Plot No.30/31, Shivaji Nagar,
Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.). ...Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri P.K. Paul, for the appellant.
Shri Narendra Dewangan, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 06/01/2016 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.06.2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.C.C./14/305. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has // 2 // allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay within a period of one month from the date of order the insurance claim amount Rs.65,307/-, along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30.10.2014 till realisation. The appellant (O.P.) has further been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (complainant) purchased a vehicle motor cycle Hero Honda Karizma bearing registration No. C.G.07-L.Z-0593. According to the R.C. Book issued by the concerned R.T.O. in favour of the respondent (complainant). The Chassis Number of the vehicle is MBLMC38EDBGD00059 and Engine Number is MC38ECBGD00033 and the said vehicle was registered in the name of the respondent (complainant). The said vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.) and the respondent (complainant) paid a sum of Rs.1,282/- towards premium and obtained Package Policy under which the appellant (O.P.) issued a Certificate of Insurance on 11.04.2012 in respect of his vehicle. The Policy No. was 285200/31/12/6200000295 which was effective for the period from 11.04.2012 to 10.04.2013. On 06.12.2012, the said vehicle of the respondent (complainant) was stolen by some unknown thief. The respondent (complainant) immediately lodged // 3 // report regarding the theft of the vehicle before the Police Station, Bhilainagar on 06.12.2012, where Crime no.647/2012 for offence under Section 379 IPC was registered against the unknown accused. After some time of the incident of theft, the respondent (complainant) submitted claim form before the appellant (O.P.) for obtaining the Insured Declared Value i.e. 65,307/-, which is mentioned in the insurance policy, which was accepted by the appellant (O.P.) along with relevant document and after some days the appellant (O.P.) again sent a letter dated 07.12.2012 to the respondent (complainant) and demanded various documents, which were submitted by the respondent (complainant). Vide letters dated 13.03.2013, 23,04,2013 and 26.08.2013, the appellant (O.P.) again demanded documents from the respondent (complainant). In response thereof, the respondent (complainant) sent his reply on 05.09.2013 to the appellant (O.P.) and he requested to provide the Insured Declared Value of the stolen vehicle according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy, but inspite of lapse of 1 ½ years, neither the appellant (O.P.) has paid the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle nor settled the claim of the respondent (complainant). After some days the respondent (complainant) came to know that the Police seized a Karizma vehicle. On checking the vehicle it was found by the respondent (complainant) that the engine number of the above vehicle is different from the engine number of vehicle of the respondent // 4 // (complainant) and the chassis of the above seized vehicle was cut and was fixed through welding, due to which there is possibility of the accident of the driver in future and other parts of the vehicle were also missing. The respondent (complainant) sent notice to the appellant (O.P.) through his Advocate on 21.04.2014 and requested to pay the claim amount, but the appellant (O.P.) did not pay the claim amount. The above act of the appellant (O.P.) comes within the category of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed its written statement and averred that as per the Insurance Policy the respondent (complainant) is the Owner and Insured of Motor Cycle bearing registration No.C.G.07-LZ-0593, bearing Chassis No.MBLMC38EDBGD00059 and Engine No.MC38ECBGD00033. In the Insurance Policy the last number of Chassis and Engine has been mentioned as 00059 and 00033. The appellant (O.P.) a after receiving premium of Rs.1,282/- had issued Package (Motorcycle/Scooter) Policy bearing Policy No.285200/31/12/6200000295 valid from 11.04.2012 to Midnight of 10.04.2013 in favour of the Motorcycle No.C.G.07-LZ-0593 which belongs to the respondent (complainant) as per the Insurance Policy.
// 5 // The respondent (complainant) gave the intimation of theft of his motorcycle on 06.12.2012 in the office of the appellant (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) issued letter dated 07.12.2012 to the respondent (complainant) demanding the documents as per the letter. The respondent (complainant) had not submitted any documents along with intimation dated 06.12.2012. The claim form has been submitted by the respondent (complainant) on 19.12.2012 along with necessary documents as required through letter dated 07.12.2012. The appellant (O.P.) wrote letters dated 13.03.2013, 25.03.2013 and 23.04.2013 demanding the respondent (complainant) to provide the affidavit, Letter of Subrogation in Stamp Paper and demanded the "Khatma Report" or "Final Report" if any, filed by the concerned Police Station or by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, so that Own Damage claim of the respondent (complainant) could be settled. The appellant (O.P.) wrote letter / reminder No.4 to the respondent (complainant) and in that reminder the appellant (O.P.) had mentioned the earlier dates of the letters / reminders issued to the respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) submitted reply dated 05.09.2013 in the office of the appellant (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) had demanded the Khatma Report or Final Report if any filed by the concerned Police Station in the Court of JMFC, Durg against any person/accused. Due to non-co-operation of the respondent (complainant) himself, the claim of the respondent (complainant) // 6 // could not be settled. The appellant (O.P.) had received the photocopy of Final Report, First Information Report lodged by the respondent (complainant) and Property Seizure Memo along with covering letter dated 30.05.2014 of Advocate Shri Narendra Kumar Dewangan. As per the First Information Report and Final Report, the Police Station has mentioned the number of Motor Cycle as C.G.07-LZ-0593, which belongs to the respondent (complainant). As per the Insurance Policy also the number of Motor Cycle of the respondent (complainant) is C.G.07-LZ-0593. As the Motor Cycle has not been obtained by the respondent (complainant) in Supurdnama, therefore, the appellant (O.P.) cannot give any reply to the allegations that the Front and Back Number Place, Central Stand, Foot Rest and Back Viper is in damaged position. The motor cycle has not been obtained by the respondent (complainant) on Supurdnama, till then the appellant (O.P.) can appoint Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the actual and correct position of the motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.07-LZ-0593, as to whether the allegations may be the respondent (complainant) is correct or false. After that only the Surveyor and Loss Assessor will be in a position to inspect the vehicle and assess the extent of loss. If the extent of loss assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor will fall within Coverage and Scope of Insurance Policy then only the appellant (O.P.) is liable for indemnification of amount, if any. The respondent (complainant) had sent legal notice dated 21.04.2014 of Advocate Shri // 7 // Narendra Kumar Dewangan, requesting the appellant (O.P.) to settle the claim of the respondent (complainant). But as the motorcycle of the respondent (complainant) was traced and seized by the concerned Police Station, and the respondent (complainant) had not obtained the motorcycle in Supurdnama, which was the prima facie duty of the respondent (complainant) and after obtaining the same, the respondent (complainant) should have informed the appellant (O.P.) so that further action could have been taken. The appellant (O.P.) did not commit any deficiency in service by not settling the claim of the respondent (complainant). No cause of action has arisen in favour of the respondent (complainant). The claim of the respondent (complainant) at present has not been repudiated neither been allowed or partly allowed, therefore, the question of any cause of action from 30.05.2014 does not arise at all. As the respondent (complainant) has not obtained the motorcycle on Supurdnama from the Court of JMFC, Durg, therefore, the claim of the respondent (complainant) is still pending with the appellant (O.P.). The complaint of the respondent (complainant) is pre-mature. The complaint of the respondent (complainant) may kindly be dismissed with cost as against the appellant (O.P.).
4. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, has allowed the complaint and // 8 // directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
5. The respondent (complainant) has filed documents. Annexure C-1 is First Information Report (Under Section 154 Cr. P.C.), Annexure C-2 is Property Seizure Memo, Annexure C-3 is Final Report (Under Section 173 Cr.P.C.), Annexure C-4 is letter dated 07.12.2012 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure C-5 is reminder dated 13.03.2013 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure C-6 is reminder - III dated 23.04.2013 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure C-7 is Reminder IV dated 26.08.2013 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure C-8 is letter dated 05.09.2013 sent by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.), Annexure C-9 is registered notice dated 21.04.2014 sent by Shri Narendra Dewangan, Advocate to the appellant (O.P.) on behalf of the respondent (complainant), Annexure C-10 is postal receipt and acknowledgement,, Annexure C-11 is letter dated 05.05.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to Shri Narendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate in response to Notice dated 21.04.2014, Annexure C-12 is letter dated 30.05.2014 sent by Shri Narendra Dewangan, Advocate to the appellant (O.P.), Annexure C-13 is Acknowledgement and postal // 9 // receipt, Annexure C-15 is VAT/Retain Invoice, Annexure C-16 is Certificate of Registration.
6. The appellant (O.P.) has also filed documents. Document D-1 is Insurance Policy, D-2 is Intimation letter dated 06.12.2012, D-3 is letter dated 07.12.2012 issued by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), D-4 is Claim Form dated 19.12.2012, D-5 to D-7 are letters dated 13.03.2013, 25.03.2013 and 23.04.2013 issued by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), D-8 is Final Reminder letter dated 26.08.2013 issued by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant).
7. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The respondent (complainant) lodged report regarding theft of his vehicle before Police Station, Bhilai Nagar (C.G.) where Crime No.647/2012 was registered and the motor cycle was seized by the concerned Police Station on the basis of Memorandum Statement given by the accused and the charge sheet was filed against the accused before the concerned Court. The vehicle in question was seized by the Police but the respondent (complainant) did not take the said vehicle in Supurdginama. If the vehicle was taken by the respondent (complainant) in Supurdginama, then the appellant (O.P.) was able to // 10 // appoint Surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) did not submit Letter of Subrogation and Letter of Undertaking before the appellant (O.P.), therefore, it was not possible for the appellant (O.P.) to compensate the respondent (complainant). He further argued that in First Information Report, the value of the stolen motorcycle was mentioned as Rs.35,000/-., therefore the actual cost of the vehicle is Rs.35,000/- and after making deduction of the excess amount, the respondent (complainant) is entitled to get compensation. Learned District Forum has erroneously awarded compensation to the respondent (complainant) to the tune of Rs.65,307/-. The respondent (complainant) deliberately did not take the vehicle in Supurdginama for getting more benefit from the appellant (O.P.), therefore, the appellant (O.P.) did not settle the claim of the respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.).
8. Shri Narendra Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and submitted that the respondent (complainant) is owner of vehicle Hero Honda Karizma bearing registration No.C.G.07-LZ-0593, Chassis No.MBLMC38EDBGD00059 and Engine No.MC38ECBGD00033. According to the Seizure Memo, // 11 // the vehicle seized by the Police Station, Bhilai Nagar in Crime No.647/2012 and the chassis no. and engine no. of the same was different from the chassis no. and engine no. of the vehicle of the respondent (complainant), which was stolen, therefore, the respondent (complainant) did not take the vehicle in Supurdginama. Merely on the basis of Memorandum Statement of accused, the vehicle was seized by the Police Station, Bhilai Nagar (C.G.) in Crime No.647/2012, it cannot be held that the same vehicle was seized, which was stolen by unknown miscreant from the possession of the respondent (complainant), but the chassis no. and engine no. were different from the vehicle of the respondent (complainant) which was stolen, therefore, it was not possible for the respondent (complainant) to take the vehicle in Supurdginama. If the seized vehicle is obtained by the respondent (complainant) in Supurdginama from JMFC, Durg, even then in future the appellant (O.P.) will not insure the vehicle because the engine number and chassis number are different and without insurance, it is not possible to ply such vehicle. If any person ply such vehicle in the road and as the welding was done by cutting chassis of the vehicle, therefore, the above vehicle at any time suffer with accident and the vehicle can be separated in two parts due to which the driver of the vehicle and other person will die and due to such accident the driver of the vehicle will unnecessary require to pay the huge amount towards compensation . Therefore, // 12 // due to aforesaid reasons, it is not appropriate to ply the vehicle in the road and the appellant (O.P.) inspite of understanding all the facts, did not pay the sum assured till date. The respondent (complainant) is entitled to get the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. The respondent (complainant) filed document Annexure C-1 which is First Information Report. In the First Information Report, it is mentioned that motor cycle Hero Honda Karizma bearing registration No.C.G.-07/LZ-0593 was stolen by some miscreants. Offence No.647/2012 for offence under Section 379 IPC was registered against unknown person. The respondent (complainant) filed Seizure Memo (Annexure C-2). In the Seizure Memo, it is mentioned in the seized vehicle there was no number plate in front and back side. The chassis was cut and welding was done. Chassis No. and Engine No.MBLMC 38 EDB4D00059 and Engine No.0511770M00858 were cut. Annexure C-16 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-LZ-0593. In the Certificate of Registration, Chassis No. and Engine No. are respectively mentioned as MBLMC38EDBGD00059 // 13 // and MC38ECBGD00033. It appears that the vehicle of the respondent (complainant) bearing registration No.C.G.07-LZ-0593 which was stolen by some miscreants is different from the vehicle which was seized by the Police Station, Bhilai Nagar in Crime No., therefore, the respondent (complainant) did not obtain the vehicle in Supurdginama because the Chassis No. and Engine No. of the seized vehicle was different from the Chassis No. and Engine No. of the vehicle of the respondent (complainant), which was stolen by some miscreants. The First Information Report was lodged by the respondent (complainant). In Seizure Memo (Annexure C-2) only Chassis No. and Engine No. of the seized vehicle were mentioned and registration No. was not mentioned, therefore, it cannot be held that the vehicle of the respondent (complainant), which was stolen by some miscreants, was seized by the concerned Police Station in Crime No.647/2012.
11. From bare perusal of the Seizure Memo (Annexure C-2) and affidavit of the respondent (complainant), it appears that the main part of the vehicle was added by welding due to which there is possibility of occurrence of the accident. The engine has also been changed. Due to above reasons, it will be presumed that as the Engine Number is not the number which is endorsed in the R.C.Book and chassis no. was cut. In these circumstances, it is not proper for the respondent (complainant) to obtain the vehicle in Supurdginama // 14 // because Chassis No. and Engine No. are main basis for identification of the vehicle. In the instant case, the Chassis No. and Engine No. of the vehicle were changed, therefore, it cannot be held that the same vehicle was seized by the Police, which was stolen by some miscreants from possession of the respondent (complainant), therefore, the respondent (complainant) has rightly not obtained the vehicle in Supurdginama and there is no fault of the respondent (complainant). Therefore, the respondent (complainant) did not commit any fault in not obtaining the vehicle in Supurdginama. Therefore, we hold that the appellant (O.P.) committed an error in understanding the actual position and by not settling the claim of the respondent (complainant) committed deficiency in service, due to which definitely the respondent (complainant) suffered mental agony, for which if the respondent (complainant) demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, then it cannot be said excessive because any person got insured his vehicle that if any accident is occurred then he will not suffer financial loss.
12. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the impugned order dated 26.06.2015, passed by the District Forum, is reasonable, just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
// 15 //
13. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member /01/2016 /01/2016 /01/2016 /01/2016