CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/424/2016
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Mohd. Samsuddin
S/o Md. Yunus
R/o C-4/254, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Marg,
LNJP Colony, Minto Road,
Daryaganj, New Delhi. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/s Barsat
25, Chitra Gupta Road, Paharganj,
Delhi (Financier, Invoice No, 0090/15-16 &
Invoice Dt. 23th Feb., 2016).
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Block No. 4, 7th Floor, DLF Tower 15,
Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015.
(Policy No. OG-16-1101-1803-00002273
W.E.F. 23/02/2016 to 22/02/2017). …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Dr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Instant complaint has been filed by Mohd. Samsuddin (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that he bought an e-rickshaw bearing no. DL-1ER-5858 which was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short insurer) for the period 23.02.2016 to 22.02.2017. E-rickshaw was stolen on 12.03.2016. Insurer was informed about the theft but his claim remained unpaid. Hence, instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 95,625/- along with interest @ 15% per annum till its realization, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
OP appeared and contested the claim vide its written statement. We have heard Sh. V.K. Gautam, counsel for complainant.
Insurer contested the claim vide its written statement wherein it is pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on its part. It is stated that insurer was informed about theft by the complainant after 42 days which is in violation of condition no. 1 of the policy which stipulates that “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject matter of claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offenders”. It is further stated that the delay in intimation has deprived the OP of its right to timely search the vehicle, find necessary facts related to loss, cause of theft, circumstances of theft, required to decide admissibility of the claim. It is stated that the claim was rightly repudiated on 07.07.2016. Reliance has been placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2005 ACJ 570: National Insurance Co. vs. Anjana Shyam 2007 ACJ 2129.
Complainant filed rejoinder to written statement of the insurer. In Para 4, Page 1 of the written statement of the insurer it is specifically pleaded that the complainant informed the insurer 42 days after the theft which is in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In corresponding Para 4 of his rejoinder complainant has not specifically dealt with this issue. He has not placed on record any documents wherein it may be indicated that the insurer was informed immediately after the incident.
In Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs. Rajaram and Ors. 2017 (1) CPR 391 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has observed thus:-
“Insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to insurer immediately after theft came to his knowledge.Mere intimating police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with terms and conditions of insurance policy.”
Apex court delivered the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nitin Khandelwal Appeal (civil) 3409 of 2008 on 08/05/2008. Subsequently, on 17/08/10 Apex Court discussed its judgment in Nitin Khandelwal (supra) in Oriental Insurance Company vs. Parvesh Chander Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 and vide its order dated 17.08.10 held that insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation in the event of breach of terms of the policy and further that insurer in such case is not bound to settle claim on non-standard basis. It observed:
“Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle the claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that:
“The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it….
Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 an insurance was taken out under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which their Lordships' observed:
“The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.”
Similarly in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. reported in (1966) 3 SCR 500 the Constitution Bench has observed that the policy document being a contract has to be read strictly. It was observed:
“In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.”
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Trilochan Jane in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09/12/2009 National Commission took the same view after discussing the judgment of Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal (supra) it was held that:
“The word immediately is stronger than the expression within a reasonable time.It was held that compensation on non-standard basis cannot be granted.”
As per the aforesaid judgments of Apex Court, policy documents have to be read strictly. The repudiation is therefore justified for delay in intimation of theft to the insurer. The complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this Day of 2019.
