DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 182 of 2010 Date of Institution: 08.03.2010 Date of Decision: 03.11.2015.
Dharmender Singh s/o Sh. Bir Singh, Village & Post Silani, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
- National Insurance Company Ltd through its Sr. Branch Manager, Branch at 18-E, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57.
- National Insurance Company Ltd, through its Agent : Jasoda Auto Pvt. Ltd, Near District Court, Sohna Road, Gurgaon.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Arun Sharma, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Saini, Adv for the opposite parties.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got his motorcycle Hero Honda (Splendor) bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AU-2091 insured with the OP vide policy No.35070131086200749258 which was valid w.e.f.03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009 with IDV of Rs.37,905/-. During the night of 08.07.2009 the complainant visited the house of his friend namely Tarun Mangla s/o Sh. Bhishember Mangla R/o 440/5, Patel Nagar, Gurgaon and parked his motorcycle outside the house of his friend but on the next day his motorcycle was found missing. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which FIR No.305 dated 10.07.2009 u/s 379 IPC was registered. He also reported the matter to the opposite party insurance company on the very next day. The police also filed Untrace Report in the matter. Then he filed the claim with the OP on 19.08.2009 but the claim of the complainant was repudiated wrongly and illegally vide letter dated 23.11.2009. Thus, the opposite party-insurance company was deficient in providing services to the complainant. He prayed that the opposite parties be directed to release the insured amount to the complainant with interest and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 The opposite party-insurance company in its written reply has alleged that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 23.11.2009 as he has violated term and condition No.1 of the insurance policy because he has informed the opposite party regarding the theft after 45 days of the occurrence and thus, he has failed to inform the opposite party-insurance company immediately regarding the occurrence of theft. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-insurance company.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that he got his motorcycle bearing Regd. No. HR-26-AU-2091 insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. No.35070131086200749258 which was valid w.e.f.03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009 with IDV of Rs.37,905/-. During the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 08.07.2009. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which FIR No.305 dated 10.07.2009 u/s 379 IPC was registered. He also reported the matter to the opposite party insurance company on the very next day. The police also filed Untrace Report in the matter. Then he filed the claim with the OP on 19.08.2009 but the claim of the complainant was repudiated wrongly and illegally vide letter dated 23.11.2009. Thus, the opposite party-insurance company was deficient in providing services to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed on record copy of IRDA Letter/circular dated 20.09.2011 in support of his contention.
5 However, the contention of the opposite party-insurance company is that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 23.11.2009 on the ground that complainant has violated the term and condition No.1 of the insurance policy as he has informed the opposite party regarding the occurrence of the theft after 45 days though he was required to give the same immediately to the opposite party-insurance company and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In support of his contention learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance on Virender Kumar Vs New India Assurance co. Ltd 1(2013) CPJ 71(NC) and Joginder Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd 1(2013) CPJ 69 (NC) wherein it was held that
“Insurance-Settlement of Claim-‘Non-standard’ basis-If the insurer going by the nature of breach of conditions is of the view that such breach was of perils, perhaps insurer would be within its right to decline to settle the claim even on ‘non-standard’ basis.
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle was stolen during the night of 08.07.2009 and the matter was reported to the police and consequently, FIR No.305 dated 10.07.2009 u/s 379 IPC, Police Station, Civil Line, Gurgaon was recorded. It is also evident that the motor claim intimation was sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 21.08.2009 (Ann C-4) i.e. after the expiry of 45 days of the occurrence and as such same was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
7 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that delay in initiating the loss to the opposite party was not a case of perils and as such the same cannot be said to be fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy so as to repudiate the claim of the complainant in toto. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Amalendu Sahoo V Oriental Insurance Company Ltd II(2010) CPJ 9 we grant compensation to the complainant on “non standard” basis i.e. 75 % of the sum insured. Therefore, we direct the opposite party No.1 Insurance Company to pay the insured amount to the extent of 75 % with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party no.1 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. the parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
03.11.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
