State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surinder Kumar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14 March, 2023
APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020 14.03.2023
SURINDER KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 23.01.2020
Date of final hearing: 14.03.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023
APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF
Surinder Kumar son of Shri Charan Dass, resident of House No.335, Gali
No.6, Karan Vihar, Ward No.11, Karnal, Haryana-132001.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Dhanwant Building, opp. Bus Stand, Karnal 132001
(Haryana).
2. National Insurance Company Limited through its Chief Regional
Manager, Regional Office, 2nd floor, SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh.
3. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Company
Limited, Head Office, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen
Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700071.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN, PRESIDENT
MS. MANJULA, MEMBER
Present: Shri Mohinder Pal, brother of appellant Surender Kumar in
person.
Shri Sandeep Suri, counsel for the respondents.
DISPOSED OF Page 1 of 7
APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020 14.03.2023
SURINDER KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS
PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been preferred by complainant Surinder Kumar for challenging the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal, whereby complaint preferred by him was accepted partly and the opposite parties directed to pay 75% of the insured amount i.e. Rs.16,500/- in lump sum to the complainant. The opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and towards litigation expenses.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the complaint by Surinder Kumar were that he had got insured his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05-AC-1753 from the opposite parties vide policy No.39010231166203096417 for the period from 11.11.2016 to 10.11.2017. The insured value of the motorcycle was fixed at Rs.21,938/-. The motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on 16.11.2016 when it was parked outside the house of the complainant. The complainant searched for his motorcycle but remained unsuccessful. Matter was reported to police and FIR No.1093 dated 17.11.2016 was registered at Police Station, Karnal Sadar. He sent intimation regarding theft of his motorcycle to the opposite parties and also lodged the claim. Requisite documents were also submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties. The DISPOSED OF Page 2 of 7 APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020 14.03.2023 SURINDER KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS opposite parties asked the complainant to provide the key of the motorcycle. The complainant submitted both the duplicate keys of the motorcycle to the opposite parties. He thereafter visited the office of the opposite parties a number of times and requested for releasing his genuine claim but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his request and repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 09.10.2017 on false grounds. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it was pleaded that the claim of the complainant was duly processed and considered but the same was not found payable as the complainant failed to supply both the original keys of the motorcycle to the opposite parties by stating that the original keys were lost long ago. The complainant flouted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant had not submitted the original keys and failed to produce any documentary proof for loss of original keys. Hence, as per Claim Manual for GIPSA Companies point No.8.4 of Motor Own Damage requirements in case of theft of vehicle, the insured should deposit the original keys with insurer but in the present case the insured failed to do so. The complainant was required to produce any bill of DISPOSED OF Page 3 of 7 APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020 14.03.2023 SURINDER KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS the authorized Hero Dealer in support of purchase of new lock and keys in consequence of loss of both the original keys of vehicle but there was nothing on record about loss of original keys for insurance company on the police record. In view of the same, the claim of the complainant was not tenable. The complainant filed complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh against the order of repudiation dated 09.10.2017. The complaint was dismissed on 11.03.2019 with the observation that the decision of the insurance company to repudiate the claim was on the ground that there was a clear violation of condition relating to original keys as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant also did not produce any supporting documents, which could prove the fact that original keys had been lost. The complainant was expected to take care and steps for safeguarding of his insured vehicle. As per complainant's version its both keys had been lost and he had made duplicate keys for the same. Hence, the complainant had no insurable interest. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was not maintainable. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.RW1/A) of Reena Basak, affidavit (Ex.RW2/A) of Deepak Saini, Advocate and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7.
DISPOSED OF Page 4 of 7
APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020 14.03.2023 SURINDER KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS
5. After hearing the complainant in person and the counsel for the opposite parties, the District Consumer Forum observed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant had not submitted the original keys with the opposite parties and as such the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, which was not justified in the eyes of law and the claim of the complainant was accordingly decided on non-standard basis.
6. When the appeal came up for preliminary hearing, the appellant was directed to file his affidavit in support of his stand that the complainant had lost both the original keys during shifting of the house and for that reason the original keys could not be produced. On the adjourned date, the appellant, namely, Surinder Kumar filed his affidavit regarding loss of the original keys during shifting of the house.
7. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.21,938/-. The vehicle of the complainant having been stolen and the theft taking place during the validity of the policy, the complainant was entitled to receive the IDV i.e. Rs.21,938/- of the vehicle instead of 75% i.e. Rs.16,500/- of the IDV on account of non-standard basis as held by the District Commission. At the same time, the amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses is on the lower side. Ends of justice require that the complainant shall receive a sum of Rs.15,000/- in lump sum on account of mental agony, DISPOSED OF Page 5 of 7 APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020 14.03.2023 SURINDER KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS harassment and litigation expenses. The appellant shall be entitled to receive the IDV of the vehicle along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order and in case of default, the appellant shall receive the IDV of the vehicle along with simple interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint till its realisation.
8. Resultantly, the complainant shall receive the IDV i.e. Rs.21,938/- of the vehicle instead of 75% i.e. Rs.16,500/- of the insured amount on account of non-standard basis. The complainant shall also receive Rs.15,000/- in lump sum on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses instead of Rs.5,000/-. The enhanced amounts shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within 30 days from the date of filing of complaint or else the opposite parties shall pay interest @ 15% per annum from the date of default. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
9. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the affidavit dated 05.09.2022 filed by the complainant pursuant to the order dated 19.05.2022, Shri Mohinder Pal may perform the duties on behalf of complainant Surinder Kumar as the complainant is presently suffering from paralysis.
10. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
DISPOSED OF Page 6 of 7
APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020 14.03.2023 SURINDER KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS
11. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.
(T.P.S. MANN) PRESIDENT (MANJULA) MEMBER Pronounced On: 14.03.2023.
DR DISPOSED OF Page 7 of 7