State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaswant Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 28 August, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.167 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.03.2017
Reserved on : 11.08.2017
Date of decision : 28.08.2017
Jaswant Singh, 77 years, son of Late Shri Amar Nath, resident of #
164, Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1.National Insurance MOTOR CLAIM HUB, R.O. CELL (DO-1), Near Atam Park, Link Road, Ludhiana-141 001.
2. National Insurance, Ropar-Chandigarh Road, Ropar.
........Respondents-Opposite Parties First Appeal against the order dated 6.2.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Jaswant Singh (In Person). For the respondent : Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the order dated 6.2.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short, "District Forum"), whereby the complainant has been directed to get released his vehicle on Sapurdari from the police station concerned and to inform the opposite parties. The opposite parties were also directed to appoint the Surveyor to assess the actual loss of the vehicle in question and thereafter settle the claim within 45 days First Appeal No.167 of 2017 2 from the date of receipt of surveyor report. Feeling not satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the complainant has come in this appeal.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the complaint:
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is a registered owner of car bearing registration No.PB-12-F-5164, which was got insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Ropar for the period from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2016. Unfortunately on 8.11.2015, while the car was parked near Gurudwara Sector 22, Chandigarh, when he had come to attend Bhog ceremony of a relative, the car was stolen.
Intimation regarding the same was given to the Police Post-Sector 22, Chandigarh. The police reached the spot and made efforts to trace out the stolen vehicle but could not succeed. FIR No.460 dated 10.11.2015 was registered at Police Station-Sector 17, Chandigarh. The Insurance Company was also informed. The opposite parties thereafter appointed the Surveyor; namely, Navneet, posted at Chandigarh for the said purpose. The complainant sent to the Insurance Company all the required documents for settlement of the claim. It is the specific case of the complainant that at the time of theft all the documents i.e. the R.C. of the vehicle, driving licence and other important personal documents of the complainant, which were in the vehicle, were also stolen. However, in the copy of the insurance cover of the lost First Appeal No.167 of 2017 3 vehicle chassis number and engine number were duly mentioned. Subsequently on the advice of Motor Claim Hub, Ludhiana, duplicate copy of R.C. etc. was got prepared and sent to the Insurance Company. In between the complainant received letter on 18.2.2016 and thereafter another letter on 16.3.2016 from the Motor Claim Hub, Ludhiana and the reply to the same was sent through the office of the Insurance Company, Ropar. After waiting for five months, the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite parties asking them as to why there was delay in settling his claim but to his disappointment he did not receive any reply. It is further stated that he received a call from the Police Station-Zirakpur that his vehicle was standing unattended somewhere and was brought to the Police Station by the police authorities. He also wrote a letter to the Motor Claims Hub, Ludhiana and also wrote a letter to the Police Station Zirakpur to allow the Insurance Company to take further action regarding the vehicle as all the documents were in it and virtually the Insurance Company was the owner of the vehicle and not he. In the meanwhile he sent his son to have a look of the vehicle, who found the vehicle in a very depleted condition. Defence of the opposite parties:
4. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared before the District Forum and took preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi. The complaint is not maintainable. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The complaint is premature and the complainant has no cause of action to file the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the First Appeal No.167 of 2017 4 opposite parties. On merits, it is averred that the car of the complainant was of Model 2003 having IDV of ₹45,000/-. The validity of the insurance policy for the period from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2016 has been admitted. The opposite parties also admitted the fact with regard to stealing of the car on 8.11.2015 and registration of the FIR in question. It is averred that on receiving the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle, the opposite parties appointed Sandeep Kumar Arora, Surveyor, for spot survey of the car, who conducted the spot survey thoroughly at Police Station-
Zirakpur. It is further averred that the complainant is responsible for delay in settling the claim because he took time to get duplicate certificate of the documents from registering authority. He did not even submit the untraceable report duly accepted by the Magistrate. Thereafter the complainant informed them that his car had been traced out by the police of Police Station-Zirakpur. Since the registration of the car is in the name of the complainant and the same was not transferred by him in the name of opposite parties, therefore, vide letter dated 29.6.2016 the complainant was asked to get the vehicle released from Police Station-Zirakpur and submit the estimate of repairs to enable the opposite parties to settle the claim. Denying any deficiency in service a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Finding of the District Forum:
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing the complainant in person and the First Appeal No.167 of 2017 5 learned counsel for the opposite parties, disposed of the complaint in the above said terms, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
6. I have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
Contentions of the Parties:
7. It was contended by the complainant in person that he informed the police of Police Post-Sector 22, Chandigarh immediately after the car was stolen and FIR about the same was registered in Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. He also informed the opposite parties about the theft of the car immediately and it was specifically mentioned in the intimation sent to the Insurance Company that the R.C., Driving Licence, Insurance and other personal documents of the complainant have been lost in the said car. This fact has also been verified by Sandeep Kumar Arora, Surveyor, who inspected the spot. It was further contended that the claim was immediately lodged with the Insurance Company. Even the duplicate copy of the R.C. was submitted. However, the opposite parties made no effort to pay the insurance claim. It is not the condition that the complainant was required to submit the untraceable report; rather, it was the Insurance Company to do the needful. The complainant is only required to submit the relevant documents and the photocopies of the same were duly supplied. The complainant has no control over the investigation and the acceptance of the traceable report. He prayed that this complaint be allowed as prayed for. First Appeal No.167 of 2017 6
8. On the other hand, it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is a delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the documents specifically the untraced report duly accepted by the Magistrate. Thereafter on receipt of information from the complainant that his car was traced by the police of Police Station Zirakpur, the opposite parties vide letter dated 29.6.2016 asked him to get the vehicle released from the said police station and submit the estimate of repairs to them. The opposite parties are ready to pay the loss, if any, to the complainant for the said car as per terms and conditions of the Policy. It was prayed that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions:
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the complainant and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
10. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company, which was valid from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2016 and the theft occurred on 8.11.2015 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The intimation regarding the same was given to the Police Post Sector 22, Chandigarh immediately and FIR No.460 was registered in Police Station- Sector 17, Chandigarh. These facts are not in dispute. It needs to be mentioned here that the complainant although has placed photocopy of the document regarding the insurance, which has been exhibited on the record but the opposite parties failed to First Appeal No.167 of 2017 7 produce on record the specific insurance policy, which they very much were having in their custody. Learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to point out that the complainant has any control over the preparation of untraceable report. The complainant has no control over the investigation by the police and submission of untraceable report to the Court and subsequently its acceptance by the Magistrate. The Magistrate in the circumstances may direct the police authorities to re-investigate the matter. The complainant cannot be declined the claim merely on the ground that untraced report has not been submitted by him nor the opposite parties can show from the terms of the insurance policy that it was a condition precedent before settling the claim. In view of the fact that the opposite parties withheld the material document and have not even placed on record any document to indicate that it is the duty of the insured to produce all the relevant document, though the duplicate copy of the R.C. of the vehicle had already been submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties but still his claim was not settled. In such circumstances, the minimum reasonable period of 90 days and the maximum reasonable period of 120 days at the most can be taken into consideration to settle the claim of the complainant.
11. So far as the contention of the opposite parties that in-spite of writing a letter to the complainant that he should get the vehicle released on Sapurdari from the Police Station-Zirakpur and thereafter get the same transferred in the name of the opposite parties, the complainant failed to do so is concerned, certainly it is First Appeal No.167 of 2017 8 for the Insurance Company to apply for the same and asked for the documents. The first letter from the Insurance Company was only received after the complainant himself intimated that his car has been traced by the police of Police Station-Zirakpur and the said letter written by the Insurance Company dated 29.6.2016 to get it released and thereafter submit the estimate of repairs to enable them to settle the claim has no significance in real sense. This letter is coming after about 8 months after the date of theft of the vehicle. Nothing has come on record as to what measures have been taken by the Insurance Company.
12. Not having a car certainly creates difficulty for a person, who is using a car for his travel. The Insurance Company is to help the insured through this crisis and stressful period. The Insurance Company in not settling the claim within the reasonable period is not only adding stress and frustration but also creating more problems specifically for a person, who is 77 years in the present case. In these circumstances, the District Forum should have taken into consideration all these factors and should have awarded more compensation including punitive damages under Section 14(d) of the C.P. Act and for the harassment caused to the complainant. In the totality of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case i.e. the delay in settling the claim and thereafter directing the complainant to get the vehicle released from the Police Station-Zirakpur and submit estimate for its repairs is certainly very harsh and specifically when a person is old one, I deem it fit that the Insurance Company shall retain the vehicle and First Appeal No.167 of 2017 9 the other necessary documents will be executed by the complainant and the complainant will be paid the IDV of the vehicle mentioned in the insurance policy along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.10.2016 till the date of payment and shall also be entitled to punitive damages to the tune of ₹20,000/- and ₹15,000/- as compensation and litigation costs.
13. In view of my above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the opposite parties-Insurance Company are directed to pay to the complainant the IDV of the vehicle i.e. ₹45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.10.2016 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are further directed to pay him punitive damages to the tune of ₹20,000/- and ₹15,000/-, as compensation and litigation costs. The complainant shall submit the letter of subrogation etc. to the opposite parties and thereafter the opposite parties shall comply with this order within two months.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT August 28, 2017 Bansal