Haryana

StateCommission

A/200/2017

sHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKHTAR - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                         First Appeal No.200 of 2017

Date of Institution:23.02.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 25.10.2017

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through Amandeep Sharma, Legal Officer,Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. S.C.O.No.178 Sector 38, Chandigarh

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Akhtar S/o Sh.Hamida, R/o Muradabas, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat (Haryana).

2.      Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. K/H No.249/2, Gharam Patti, Near Hassan Chowk, NH-2, Main Mathura Road, District Palwal, Hodel through its Branch Manager.

                                      …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri V.K.Arya, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             Shri Sunil Dhanda, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                             Mr.Mandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

As per complainant he got his Jeep/Max bearing registration NO.HR-55D/9617 insured from opposite parties (O.Ps.)-Appellants  and policy was valid from 03.02.2013 to 02.02.2014.  On 04.05.2013 he parked vehicle in front of house of Mustufa and properly locked the same. At about 05.00 A.M. when he went to that place his jeep was found missing.  He immediately moved application before police , but, FIR No.148 was registered on 12.05.2013 for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”).  On that very day he sent information about theft to O.Ps., but, his claim was not allowed.

2.      As O.P.No.2 was proceeded against ex parte, only  O.P.1 filed reply wherein it was alleged that complaint was altogether false and frivolous.  He lodged FIR after eight days of incident and gave information to insurance company after 16 days. The terms and conditions of insurance policy were clearly violated by him.  He did not take proper care of the vehicle. So he was not entitled for any compensation.  He also moved an application before permanent Lok Adalat for compensation, which was disposed of on 15.11.2013.  Thereafter he filed civil suit which was withdrawn on 17.12.2015.  He concealed this fact intentionally.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, estoppel, accruing cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction of consumer Fora etc.  were also  raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated  16.11.2016 and directed as under:-

“Accordingly the complaint is allowed with the direction to opposite party no.1 to pay insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.2,50,000/- subject to compulsory deducible amount of Rs.500/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite party no.1 will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as this compensation will be in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom appellants-O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that  he immediately lodged complaint with police and gave information to O.Ps., so there was no delay on his part and learned District forum rightly granted compensation, as mentioned above. The appeal has no merits and the same be dismissed.

7.      This argument is of no avail. Complainant has not produced any evidence on the file to prove that he informed police or insurance company on the date of incident. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be presumed that information was given on that very day.  From the perusal of FIR Ex.C-7, it is clear that information was given for the first time on 12.05.2013.  There is delay of seven days in lodging F.I.R. and there is no plausible explanation about the same.  

8.      Further,  as per complainant theft took place on 04.05.2013, but, he informed O.Ps on 20.05.2013 i.e. after sixteen days.  As per terms and conditions of policy he was supposed to inform immediately. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission have opined about ‘immediately’.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8 that word ‘immediately’ means the information is to be given without any loss of time. Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the word ‘immediately’ giving reference of so many dictionaries.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has also opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal,  (supra) that terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or substracted from the same.  Hon’ble National Commission also opined in NIA Vs.Trilochan  Jane, first appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009, Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 518 2013 (3) that if there is inordinate delay in giving information to the company, without any explanation, the  claim can be repudiated by the company. 

Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3719 of 2011 Siraj Khan vs. Mahindra Finance Ltd. and others, decided on 03.07.2012 wherein  it is opined as under:-

“5.     It emerged from perusal of the facts of the case and the documents placed on record that there was inordinate delay in informing the police as well as the opposite parties about the alleged incident. Nothing has been produced before us to counter this important aspect. The State Commission following the order of the National Commission in Appeal No.321 of 2005 in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that time is of essence in such cases and delay is in lodging the FIR and sending intimation about theft to the insurer would be fatal to the recovery of the insured vehicle and hence repudiation of the claim on this ground would be justified. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.”

9.      The claimant has miserably failed to explain the delay of seven days in lodging FIR and sixteen days delay in informing insurance company.           Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that he was not entitled for compensation and insurance company rightly repudiated his claim. The Learned District Forum passed the impugned order by ignoring all these aspects and the same cannot be sustained.

10.    For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order  dated 16.11.2016 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.

 

October 25th, 2017     Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.