BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 578 of 2019
Date of Institution : 27.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 18.10.2022.
Rajender Singh aged about 47 years son of Shri Lehana Singh, JF 1, Barnala Road, Mini Secretariat, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Kar House Building, 1st Floor, Opposite Hotel Jai Vilas Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its authorized person.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Regional Office, New No. 497 & 498 Old No. 276 and 277, Asana Khati Ma Building, 5th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai- 600106.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR …………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ………… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sandeep Gaba, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) for the indemnification of claim of his insured mobile.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 12.09.2018 complainant had purchased a mobile Samsung J6 from Chawla Radios, Sirsa vide bill No. C-18/19-889 and got insured the same with op no.1 under policy No. OG-19-1207-9931-00001324 on the same day for a period of one year. That on 5.6.2019, the aforesaid mobile was lost in the area of City Sirsa and complainant tried to search the same at his own level but he did not get any clue in this regard and ultimately he got lodged an online report of lost property vide application dated 5.6.2019 on the portal of Haryana Police Citizen Services. Before lodging the aforesaid report, complainant intimated the op no.1 about the incidence. It is further averred that thereafter the ops had claimed copies of documents alongwith invoice, adhar card, bank account passbook alongwith police report etc. from complainant for indemnification of claim of complainant and complainant had already provided all these documents to the ops but despite submission of all the relevant documents, claim has not been indemnified. The complainant made repeated requests to the ops in this regard but of no use. That thereafter complainant got issued a registered legal notice to the ops on 7.8.2019 but ops intentionally avoided to receive the notice. That such act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding concealment of true and material facts, estoppal, complainant is not consumer of answering ops, hence complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action, that since complainant has neither lodged any claim nor has even intimated about the alleged loss till date, the complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of claim being Pre-mature, that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that answering op never received any intimation regarding the alleged claim and no such claim is registered with answering op. The complainant has breached terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the answering op is not liable to pay any claim. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated and contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong. In additional pleas, it is submitted that there exists insurance policy which was valid from 12.09.2018 to 11.09.2019 and said policy is subject to its terms, conditions and limitations thereof. The complainant has never intimated the ops about any loss and has never filed any claim with the ops which is clear violation of condition no.5 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents i.e. insurance details Ex.C2, retail invoice Ex.C3, lost property report Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7, adhar card Ex.C8.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurav Khullar, authorized signatory as Ex.R1, duplicate copy of insurance policy/ schedule Ex.R2 and terms and conditions of policy Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that ops have failed to indemnify the genuine claim of his insured mobile which was lost during the period of policy. He has further contended that ops insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on the basis of technicalities. The information of incidence was immediately reported to the police on the same day of incidence and it is not possible and believable that intimation of loss of mobile was not given to the ops insurance company. Though there was no delay in information of the incidence to the ops by complainant, but however, ops also cannot deny the claim of complainant on the ground of delay and has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dharamender vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. CA No. 5705 of 2021 decided on 13.09.2021 in which it has been held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 23- Theft of vehicle- 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.” Learned counsel for complainant has also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Jaina Construction Company vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. CA No. 1069 of 2022 decided on 11.2.2022 in which it has been held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 23- Theft of vehicle- Repudiation of claim on ground of delay in FIR- Whether Insurance claim rightly repudiated in toto merely on ground of delay of 5 months in informing insurance company regarding theft even though FIR was lodged immediately on next day- Held, No- FIR lodged immediately on next day of occurrence- Accused were arrested and charge-sheeted- Challan filed in court- However, vehicle could not be traced- Thus, Insurance Company cannot repudiate claim merely on ground of delay in intimating Insurance Company- Hence, repudiation of insurance claim by insurance company not justified.” Learned counsel for complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops filed written arguments in which it is contended that complainant has directly filed the present complaint without giving any information of incidence in question and without filing any claim with ops. He has further contended that as per terms and conditions of policy coverage was given for Fire and Allied Perils, Accidental damage, electrical mechanical breakdown, transit and any other fortuitous cause and no coverage was given for theft/ lost and complaint is pre-mature as complainant has failed to bring on record any document which shows that matter was intimated to insurance company and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
10. No doubt, claim on the ground of mere delay cannot be denied and the law relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in this regard is not in dispute. But in the present case, the complainant has not explained the reason of loss of mobile in question. He has not explained that as to how the mobile was lost. The ops have relied upon terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the perusal of which reveals that the mobile of the complainant was insured against Fire and Allied Perils, Accidental Damage, Electrical and mechanical Breakdown caused by accident, Transit and any other fortuitous cause. Further exclusions clauses have also been given in the policy in question and the exclusion clause 4 of the policy is relevant which is reproduced as under:-
“Handset/ laptop lost under mysterious circumstances, lost, fallen, disappearance/ missing of handset/ laptop, forgotten or misplaced or left unattended”.
11. In the present case, the complainant has not explained that as to how the mobile was lost. Since complainant has not explained the reason of loss of mobile and as per exclusion clause claim is not covered if handset/ laptop lost under mysterious circumstances, lost, fallen, disappearance/ missing of handset/ laptop, forgotten or misplaced or left unattended and as complainant has failed to disclose that mobile was not lost under mysterious circumstances or was not lost due to his own negligence or un-attending of the same, therefore, we are of the considered view that above said exclusion of terms and conditions of the policy is applicable to this case and therefore, complainant is not entitled to any claim amount for the loss of his mobile.
12. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 18.10.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
