Haryana

StateCommission

A/608/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHWANI KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      608 of 2016

Date of Institution:      06.07.2016

Date of Decision :       04.08.2016

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, through its Legal Officer.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Ashwani Kumar s/o Sh. Jagan Nath, Resident of House No.739, Dyalpura Colony, Karnal, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri V.K. Arya, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

        This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated May 6^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Ashwani Kumar-complainant/respondent, was allowed. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“….we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,87,500/- i.e. 75% of the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account t of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.”

2.                A tractor bearing registration No.HR-21D-0425, owned by the complainant, was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, for the period March 26^th, 2011 to March 25^th, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.2,50,000/-. During the intervening night of May 25^th/26^th, 2011 the tractor was stolen. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with the Police. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that the tractor was stolen during the intervening night of May 25^th/26^th, 2011 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given on June 1^st, 2011. Thus, there was delay of 6 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Secondly, that the tractor was used on hire and reward whereas it was insured as a private vehicle for agriculture purpose. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant.

4.      At this juncture, before adverting to the facts at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’). It has been specifically mentioned in the above said circular by IRDA that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.  The operative part of the circular reads as under:-

 “The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”

5.      Indisputably, the tractor was stolen during the intervening night of May 25^th/26^th, 2011; F.I.R. was lodged with the Police and the Insurance Company was informed. No cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant.  In this view of the matter, the first ground on which the impugned order was assailed, is repelled.

6.      Coming now to the second contention with respect to the use of vehicle on hire and reward whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held as under:-

“12.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.” 

7.      In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

8.      It is admitted case of the Insurance Company that the tractor was insured for Rs.2,50,000/- and it was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. This being so, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV.

9.      In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 04.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL