Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI
N/A, N/A
Md. Mokhtar v. New India Assurance Company Limited
Consumer Complaint No. 659 of 2016
For the Complainant: N/A
For the Respondents: G.C. Jha
The repudiation of an insurance claim based on alleged contradictions in statements is unjustified if there's substantive evidence supporting the claim and no violation of policy terms.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d) - Insurance Claim - Theft of insured vehicle - Claim repudiated citing contradictions in statements - The Court held that the investigator misused signatures to fabricate evidence against the Complainant, and thus the repudiation was unjustified. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 30)
(B) Insurance Policy Terms - Violation of Clause 5 - The allegation of leaving ignition keys unattended was insufficiently substantiated by evidence; hence no violation was established. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant, owning a truck insured with the Respondent, filed a claim after the vehicle was stolen. The Respondent denied the claim due to alleged discrepancies in statements despite the theft being reported to authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Insurance Company’s denial of the claim was deemed unwarranted as there was no definitive proof of policy violation. The Court ordered the Insurance Company to fulfill its financial obligations, after confirming the validity of the theft incident.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the claim rejection, contradiction in statements, and policy condition violations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contradicting statements, while existent, did not justifiably lead to a repudiation of the claim, particularly in light of evidence supporting the theft; thus, the Insurance Company must honor the claim as per the policy.
Result: Complaint allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for insured amount and compensation. (Para 1 , 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the theft incident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. claims process and initial responses. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. court's ruling in favor of the complainant. (Para 30 , 31) |
1. The Complainant prays for the following relief's:
(a) Payment of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) amounting to Rs. 20,70,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs seventy thousand) together with 12% interest w.e.f. the date of theft of the vehicle;
(b) Compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) for deficiency in service;
(c) Compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant;
(d) Litigation Costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand).
2. Thus, the total amount claimed by the Complainant from the Opposite Parties comes to Rs. 21,95,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs ninety five thousand) only.
3. CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
The Complainant is the registered owner of Truck bearing Registration Number JH - 02Y - 3201. He had purchased the same by availing loan from M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., Hazaribagh.
The said Truck is subject to hire purchase Agreement executed between the Complainant & Cholamandam Investment & Finance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Financier). The said
Truck is also under Terms of Hypothecation with the Financier (Respondent No. 2).
4. The Complainant has further stated that the Truck in question was duly insured with New India Assurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 1) vide Insurance Policy No. 54060431130100003684 for the period 28.2.2014 to 27.2.2015. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs. 20,70,000 / .
On 19.11.2014 at about 2 a.m. the said Truck got stolen from the territorial jurisdiction of the Masuri Police Station, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh while it was on its way to Dasna from Aligarh carrying chicken feed.
5. Further case of the Complainant is that on 18.11.2014, the driver of the Truck namely Navjul son of Ejhar, resident of Khirgaon, Hazaribagh along with the Cleaner left Aligarh with chicken feed for Dasna. On the way, the Driver and Helper felt hungry and parked the Truck at a distance of 200-250 steps away from a road side hotel ahead of a Petrol Pump. Both had their dinner and retired for rest. Around 2 a.m., they noticed that the Truck was missing. The Driver saw a Truck passing ahead of him. He ran after the Truck but fell down. Thereafter, both the Driver and the Helper frantically searched in and around the said place, but the Truck could not be traced and as such, they went to the Masuri Police Station and informed them of the incident.
On the basis of their information, Masuri P.S. - Crime (F.R.) No. 945/2014 was registered under S.379 of the I.P.C. and, after investigation, final form was submitted showing the case to be true.
6. Since, however, there was no clue regarding the identity of the miscreant / miscreants, the final form closure report was submitted before the 3rd ACJM, Ghaziabad and the same was accepted by the said learned court vide order dated 18.4.2015.
7. As soon as information with regard to the above incident was received, the Complainant informed the Insurance Company (Opposite Party No. 1) about the theft of the Truck. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted a claim form along with all requisite documents as per demands made by the said Opposite Party No. 1, Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Insurance Company).
8. However, the Insurance Company on its part, sat over the matter for almost one year. Time and again, the Complainant approached them for settlement of his claim as he was suffering from recurring loss on account of monthly installments which were being paid to the Financier without being able to make any income from the Truck in question which had been stolen 'away.
9. Ultimately, however, the Insurance Company repudiate
