Haryana

StateCommission

A/992/2018

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

20 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

                                                          First Appeal No  :      992 of 2018

Date of Institution:     21.08.2018

Date of Decision :      20.09.2018

 

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 103, 2^nd Floor, Mughal Canal Market, Karnal, Local Address: SCO No.2463-2464, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22C, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

1.      Baljeet Singh son of Sh. Umed Singh, resident of House No.826, V.P.O Kiloi Khas, District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      The Manager, Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company Limited, Chhotu Ram Chowk, 2^nd Floor, above Tanishq Jewellers Building, Rohtak.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member       

 

 

 

 

 

Argued:                Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for appellant

                             Shri Gaurav Khera, Advocate for respondent No.1complainant

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This is an appeal filed by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) for setting aside order dated April 13^th, 2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Baljeet Singh-complainant was allowed on account of theft of his truck bearing registration No.HR46C-3293. For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “5.     In view of the above, this complaint succeeds and we award a sum of Rs.14,62,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint, that is, August 11^th, 2016 till its realization and Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant to be paid by the opposite party No.2 within one month from the date of decision.  As the complainant has placed on record N.O.C and Form No.35 from the Financer, so, the payment is to be made to the complainant.  Assistant is directed to handover N.O.C and Form No.35 to the respondent No.2 after due compliance.”

2.      The truck owned by the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company for the period September 17^th, 2014 to September 16^th, 2015. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.14,62,500/-.  On June 28^th, 2015, the truck was stolen. The complainant lodged First Information Report No.293 dated June 28^th, 2015 with the Police. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim only on the ground that there was a delay of 18 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum.

3.      The truck was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  The FIR was registered on the same day of the incident.  The Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that there was a delay of 18 days in giving intimation to it. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Gurmeet Kaur and Others, Revision Petition No.629 of 2015 decided on August 03^rd, 2015 Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held as under:-

          “5.    It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Company that in addition to reporting the theft of the vehicle to the police, the complainant was also required to give intimation of theft to the Insurance Company so that an Investigator could be appointed to independently investigate the alleged theft and also make efforts, in association with the police, to recover the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to clause 1 of the conditions attached to the Insurance policy issued to the complainant and submitted that the aforesaid clause required the intimation of the theft of the vehicle to be given to the Insurance Company immediately after the said theft took place. The clause relied upon by the learned counsel reads as under:-

"1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident and in the event of any claim. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the Insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending. Prosecution Inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of any accident which may give rise to a claim under this policy."

 

6.      On a careful perusal of the aforesaid clause, we find that it applies only to the occurrence of an accident where a claim is to be lodged with the Insurance Company. The above referred clause does not require the Insured to give immediate intimation to the Insurance Company in case of theft of the vehicle. It is settled law that the terms of an Insurance Policy have to be strictly construed and the Court can neither add to nor subtract anything from the terms and conditions contained in the policy. A theft being a deliberate dishonest act, cannot be said to be an accident.”

 

4.      In view of the facts and law enunciated above, it is held that the Insurance Company cannot deny to indemnify the complainant with respect to the loss of insured vehicle.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

 

Announced 20.09.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 UK