Haryana

StateCommission

A/232/2016

ICICI LOMB.GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.SETIA

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      232 of 2016

Date of Institution:      17.03.2016

Date of Decision :       20.10.2016

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at The Statement, 4^th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area Phase-I, next to Hometel, Chandigarh (UT), through its Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Baljit Singh s/o Shri Mange Ram, Resident of VPO Lova Khurd, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:                    Shri N.K. Setia, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Gaurav Khera, Advocate for respondent.                 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

           ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated December 10^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by complainant-respondent, was accepted directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“….It is observed that opposite party  shall pay the 75% insured declared value of vehicle i.e. to pay Rs.1081500/- (Rupees ten lac eighty one thousand five hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 26.04.2011 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of frormalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.”    

2.                Truck bearing registration No.HR-63A-7555, owned by Baljit Singh-complainant/respondent, was insured with the Insurance Company for the period December 27^th, 2008 to December 26^th, 2009 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit P-4. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.14,42,000/-. During the subsistence of the policy, the truck was stolen on February 26^th, 2009. First Information Report (FIR) No.392 (Exhibit P-8) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station, Nangloi, Delhi on August 31^st, 2009. The Police submitted untraced report Exhibit P-6/P-7. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who investigated the matter. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company, however the Insurance Company repudiated complainant’s claim vide letter Exhibit R-2.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite party-Insurance Company contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that that the truck was stolen on 26^th February, 2016; FIR was lodged on 31^st August, 2009 and the Insurance Company was informed on 4^th September, 2009. There was delay of 182 days in lodging FIR and delay of 186 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Thus, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurnace Policy. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed compalint directing the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assailed the order of the District Forum by placing reliance upon the repudiation letter Exhibit R-2.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the affidavit (Exhibit PW3/A) sworn by Satender Singh, Head Constable wherein it was stated that he was the Investigating Officer. Paragraphs No.3 to 6 of the affidavit read as under:-

“3.     That deponent was investigation Officer in the under mentioned FIR.

4.      That without proper investigation deponent was unable to register the F.I.R. at that time. There was a huge burden of work at that time therefore the F.I.R. was registered late. In the mean time Trilok s/o Ramdhan R/o Village Jakhoda P.S. Sadar Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar visited deponent several times to get registered the F.I.R. but due to huge work load concerned Police Station could not register the same.

5.      That the driver of the truck (trolla)Rajender Prasad s/o Ram Waran R/o Village Raghadpur Distt Mirjapur, Uttar Pradesh had informed the Police post Tikri in the night of 26-02-2009.

6.      That the delay in registering the FIR was not on the part of the complainant but it was on the part of the police and it was not intentional but it was all due to the work load and pending investigations.”

7.                This witness has not stepped into the witness box. Besides, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-7) has been placed on the file by the complainant. It has been prepared by Satender Singh, H.C. No.490/W, Police Station Nangloi. In the final report he has mentioned that the complainant met him for the first time on 31^st August, 2009 when his statement regarding theft of truck was recorded. Thus, the affidavit (Exhibit PW3/A) is contradictory to the final report Exhibit P-7. To prove the contents of the affidavit, the deponent should have stepped into the witness box which has not been done in this case. Complainant has not examined the witness nor the witness himself tendered the affidavit. Even genuineness of affidavit is doubtful. HC Satender Singh was not summoned by complainant. He is an official witness and was to depose on the basis of official record. Besides he was not even posted in Police Station Nangloi and was posted in Police Station Mundka, as per affidavit.

8.                There is no reference of giving information by the complainant to the Police on 26^th February, 2009 regarding theft of truck, as is being projected by the complainant and in affidavit Exhibit PW3/A tendered by the complainant purported to have been sworn by H.C. Satender Singh. Even in the F.I.R. (Exhibit P-8), there is no reference of any such intimation to the Police on 26^th February, 2009.  Intimation to the Insurance Company on 4^th September, 2009 also finds supprt from the Claim Form Exhibit R-6, wherein the date of intimation to the Insurance Company has been mentioned as 04.09.2009. Exhibit R-6 has been signed by the complainant.

9.                In Revision Petition No.2479 of 2015, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jai Prakash, decided on 11^th January, 2016 by Hon’ble National Commission, repudiation of complainant’s claim was held to be justified because the complainant failed to explain the delay of about three months in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.

10.              In the case in hand also, the complainant has miserably failed to explain the delay of six months in lodging the FIR and giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Thus, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating complainant’s claim. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

11.              In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

12.              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, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

                              

 

Announced 20.10.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL