KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 815/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 17.7.12
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
1. The Divisional Manager
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Vishnu building,
Kadavanthara, Cochin.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. : APPELLANTS
570- Rectifier house,
Naiguam cross road, Wadala, Mumbai.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs
Abdul Sathar, ‘ Sartaj’, M.S. Road,
Cherakkara, Thalassery. : RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in CC No. 126/2010 by the opposite parties. The Forum below ordered to pay Rs.1,68,750/- as claim amount with 12% interest from the date of stolen the vehicle to date of order and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Further the Forum also ordered that on failure on compliance of the order the complainant is entitled for 9% interest p.a for the whole amount from the date of the order till realization.
2. The complainant’s case is that he was the registered owner of TATA Indica car having a valid insurance policy from 06.12.2007 to 5.12.2008. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in the event of any loss or damage to the car. It is the case of the complainant that while the car was parked on 23.08.08, the car was stolen and that a case was registered u/s 379 of IPC under
crime No. 430/2008 before the Palakkad North Police Station. The theft was informed to the opposite party also. As the matter was not settled the claim petition, filed. The complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party in April 2010 which was not responded nor settled the claim by the opposite parties. The complaint filed against the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
3. In the version filed by the opposite parties it is contended that the policy was admitted during the period from 06.12.2007 to 5.12.2008. As per the policy condition No.1, the insured is liable to intimate the insurer regarding the loss immediately and if there is any delay in intimating the loss the insurer can repudiate the claim of the insured. It is also contended that there is an inordinate delay of 16 months in informing the theft of the vehicle to the opposite parties and as there is gross violation of the condition of policy the opposite party is not liable to pay the claim amount as preferred by the complainant.
4. To substantiate their case both parties filed affidavit and documents and marked Exts. A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant and Exts. B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The Forum below came to the conclusion based on the guidelines of the Hon’ble National Commission that in a case of violation of policy condition, the claim ought to have settled on a
non-standard basis. The Forum also based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases where the claims are to be settled on non-standard basis, the payment of 75% is the admissible claim. In view of the decisions, the complaint was allowed and found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for non-payment of the claim amount.
6. The counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the appellant did not settle the claim as there was delay in launching the claim and it is a grave violation of policy condition. The counsel also brought to our notice that the condition No.1 of the policy is a mandatory direction to the insured that the notice should be given in writing to the company immediately on the happening of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim. He also pointed out that the violation of policy condition in not informing in time also restrained the appellant from giving an opportunity to verify the genuineness of the claim. He further argued that the non-standard settlement can be invoked only in cases of minor violations and not for grave violation like this case. Submitting that the Forum below applied the non-standard settlement is against the conditions of the policy which was prevalent at the time of issuance of the insurance policy. He also prayed for setting aside the finding of the Forum below. The counsel also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble National Commission in National Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. Sansar Chand III (2010) CPJ 256 (NC) wherein the claim cannot be settled on non-standard basis on a breach of policy. In that case the fact that the driver was not holding valid driving license is fundamental right and of breach of policy. On the breach of terms and conditions of policy the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the insurer. He also relied on another decision in the National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Vs. Yodeva Synthetic Private Ltd., IV (2006) CPJ 210 (NC) wherein the delay in intimation to the insurer deprived of the appointment of the surveyor in time to carry out investigation of loss on spot. The Insurance Company is not in a position to conduct the enquiry regarding the theft or loss in time due to the delay in intimation.
7. The counsel for the respondent submitted that immediately on getting the knowledge of the theft of the vehicle the matter was reported to the nearest police station and lodged the complaint. The matter was also informed to the opposite parties immediately. As the claim was not settled the complainant again had to issue legal notice for settling the claim. It is also submitted that the Forum below rightly awarded the claim amount.
8. Heard both sides in detail. On going through the records this Commission is of the view that the mere violation of the condition in not informing immediately the insurer should not repudiate the claim. The Apex Court held in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) in cases of violation of condition the appellant/insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The National Commission in the case in National Insurance Company Vs Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) also allowed the claim on
non-standard basis. In the instant case the entire contention of the insurance company is only with regard to the delay in informing the theft. Meantime, the theft was informed immediately to the nearest police station by the insured. So we cannot find fault with the insured. Following the decisions of the Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto.
9. This Commission is of the considered view that the Forum below rightly came to the conclusion and finding that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and direct the opposite party to pay 75 % of the total claim ie on non-standard basis.
In the result, appeal is dismissed upholding the order passed by the Forum below.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Lower Forum with the LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
Da
