Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 367
Instituted on : 10.09.2020
Decided on : 16.10.2023
Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Inder Singh, resident of House No.647B/29, Tilak Nagar Rohtak.
......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-410006, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
- Mr. Deepak Dahiya, agent of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, resident of House No.101/10, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak.
...........…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No.2 given up VOD 03.11.2021.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-15B-0286 and same was got insured with the opposite party No. 1 vide policy No.OG-18-9906-1801-00116864 for the period from 09.02.2018 to 08.02.2019. The IDV of the said vehicle was Rs.2,78,149/-. The friend of the complainant Jai Kishn had taken the said vehicle of the complainant to Delhi and parked the same near Triveni Colony, near Shiv Mandir, Bakhtawarpur, Alipur, Delhi. When he came back at 5.00PM on 08.02.2019 then he saw that the insured vehicle of the complainant was stolen. Intimation regarding the same was given to the Rider who was on duty in that area on that time. Thereafter he intimated in the police station and FIR no. 4974 dated 10.02.2019 was registered. It is also submitted that the documents of the said vehicle were lying in the vehicle itself. The complainant intimated to the official of the opposite parties within time telephonically as well as in writing about the theft of the said insured vehicle and lodged his claim vide claim no. OC-19-110-1801-000025329 of the stolen vehicle. The complainant submitted all the required documents and completed all the required formalities as required by the official of the opposite party. Complainant requested the opposite parties for payment of his genuine claim but the opposite party no. 1 vide letter dated 03.08.2019 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. After receiving the letter complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said letter. The complainant submitted the untrace report issued by the competent authority/Court regarding the aforesaid vehicle. Complainant fulfilled all the requirements and requested the opposite party to pay the genuine claim but they refused to accede the request of the complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,78,149/- as insured declared value (IDV) of vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till the actual realization, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that they insured the vehicle bearing no. HR15B-0286 vide policy No.OG-18-9906-1801-00116864 which was valid from 09.02.2018 to 08.02.2019. It is further submitted that complainant has not intimated to the opposite party immediately for conducting the spot survey. The theft of the alleged vehicle occurred on 08.02.2019 as per version of complainant whereas intimation for theft of the vehicle was submitted/informed on 19.02.2019 after a delay of 11 days. Further complainant not informed the police immediately and lodged FIR on 10.02.2019. It is further submitted that they had appointed an investigator to investigate the facts, collect the documents and assessment of loss of the vehicle. It has been pointed out by the investigator that:-
The vehicle was stolen on 08.02.2019 i.e. on the last day of the policy expiry period and insured did not take any renewal over the policy. No record was found in the entry register of the police. They have sent RTI to PCR office and concerned police station and they confirmed that they did not receive any call or instruction on 08/09-02-2019. However FIR has been lodged on 10.02.2019 for the theft of the vehicle. The opposite party sent letters dated 03.05.2019, 04.06.2019 and 21.06.2019 to the complainant by mentioning that there is a delay of 11 days in intimating the loss to insurer and 2 days delay in FIR, which is violation of policy terms and conditions no. 1 of the policy and they asked the complainant to provide some documents. But complainant did not submit the reply and documents and after that they repudiated the claim vide letter dated 03.08.2019. It is also submitted that as per the statement of the complainant and declaration form filled by the complainant, it has been mentioned that he had received a call at around 6:00 PM on 08.02.2019 from his friend Mr. Jai Kishan that the vehicle has been stolen while as per the statement of Mr. Jai Kishan, it has been mentioned that he had parked the vehicle on 07.02.2019 and came back at around 11:55 PM on 08.02.2019 and noticed that the vehicle has been stolen from the location. There is difference in the time of theft as per the complainant and as per Mr. Jai Kishan. There has been misrepresentation of facts by the complainant for the purpose of getting insurance claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Learned counsel for the complainant given up opposite party no. 2 being unnecessary vide his statement dated 03.11.2021.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence on dated 28.01.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex. R12 and closed his evidence on dated 22.06.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 03.08.2019 placed on record as Ex.R3. Prior to this letter the insurance company wrote 3 letters dated 21.06.2019 04.06.2019 and 03.05.2019 i.e. Ex.R4 to Ex.R6 respectively. Last letter was written on dated 03.08.2019. As peer investigation report Ex.R8, under the head ‘Police finding’ the investigator contended that the date of loss is 08.02.2019 at 5.00P.M. The intimation to the police authority was given on 10.02.2019. We have minutely perused the investigation report dated 30.04.2019. As per the opposite party the insurance was valid from 09.02.2018 to 08.02.2019 and the investigator apprehended that the police has not been informed by the complainant just after the loss. So there is an apprehension to the respondent company that vehicle was stolen on 08.02.2019. This fact has been clarified by the investigator in his report in conclusion para:- “It is noticed that insured vehicle was stolen on 08.02.2019 i.e. on the last date of policy expiry period and insured did not take any renewal over the policy”. On perusal of conclusion para of the investigation report, it has been confirmed that vehicle was covered on the date of incident. So only the contention of the insurance company is that there is a delay in lodging of FIR and delayed intimation to the opposite party regarding the loss. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the authorities cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in Revision petition no.2033 of 2018, decided on 14.09.2021 by the Hon’ble National commission in case titled a OIC Vs. Hari Kishan Khatri & Anr., order dated 26.10.2017 in RSA No.4958 of 2017(O & M) titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. GhanShyam Dass and another and order of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 titled as Dharmender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Repudiation of claim on ground of delay of 78 days in not informing insurance company of theft-Held, mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that repudiation of claim on the ground of delayed intimation is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as per IDV of the vehicle. As per policy Ex.C1, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.278149/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.278149/-(Rupees two lac seventy eight thousand one hundred and forty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.09.2020 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party No.1 shall comply with the order dated 16.10.2023 of this Commission within one month. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.10.2023.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
