Haryana

StateCommission

A/415/2015

BHAG SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AXA GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.WALIA

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.415 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 05.05.2015

Date of Decision: 06.10.2015

 

Bhag Chand S/o Sh.Sheo Chand, R/o Shikarpur, Tehsil and District Hisar.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No.28, Doddanekundi village K.R.Puran, Hobli, Bangalore 560037 through its General Manager.
2. Bharti Axa General Insurance co. Ltd., SCF 52, IInd Floor, Urban Estate-II, Delhi road Hisar, district Hisar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                      .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Walia, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

    

It was alleged by the complainant that he got his tractor insured from O.P. on 06.08.2011 for a value of Rs.3,80,000/- which was valid up to 05.08.2012. During the night of 06.08.2011 he parked tractor near his house.  On 07.08.2011 at about 4.00 a.m. the tractor was found missing he immediately got registered FIR No. 626 dated 07.08.2011 at P.S.Sadar Hissar for the offence punishable 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short “IPC”).  An information was also  given to Opposite parties (O.Ps.).  It was assured that if tractor would not be found then compensation would be paid.  His tractor was having temporary registration No.HR 99 HG 6106.  He sent legal notice to the O.Ps., but, to no avail.

2.      O.Ps.          filed joint written statement controverting his averments and alleged that his claim was repudiated on 05.01.2013 because he did not get his tractor registered properly as per provided under section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In Short “M.V.Act”) and was having temporary number only.  Sale certificate was issued about the tractor on 31.03.2011.  He did not  get the vehicle insured at the time of purchase on 24.11.2010. He got insured on 06.08.2011 and declared that it was new and 2011 model, whereas it had already plied for more than 700 hours. He misrepresented at the time of obtaining insurance policy and is not entitled for any compensation.   Information was given to them after 23 days of theft, whereas he was supposed to give information immediately.  Objections about concealing true facts, maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction , locus standi, no cause of action etc. were  raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Hissar dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 23.12.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that as per section 39 of the M.V.Act no person can ply any vehicle on the road unless the same is got registered.  In the present case temporary registration certificate issued in favour of complainant was valid upto 30.04.2011. Within that period he was to obtain registration certificate.  When he has violated the terms and conditions of M. V. Act he is not entitled for any compensation and claim was rightly repudiated.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. As per facts mentioned above it is clear that tractor of the complainant was standing at his house.  It was not moving on the road or parked at any other place at the time of the theft. Section 39 of the Act prohibits plying of motor vehicle on the road and not keeping at the house.  A person can purchase any vehicle and park at his house for the sake. He cannot  be forced to get the vehicle registered unless he is willing to ply the same in public place.  Section 39 prohibits the use of vehicle in public place unless properly registered. This section does not prohibit parking of tractor at the house.

8.      Learned counsel for the O.Ps. further argued that theft had taken place on 06.08.2011, but, complainant informed about his claim on 30.08.2011 i.e. after 23 days.  When there is inordinate delay,  the insured cannot ask for compensation.  As per insurance policy information was to be given immediately.  Learned District Forum rightly rejected his claim.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision petition No.4749 of 2013 titled as Shriram General Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Mahender Jat decided on 16.12.2014 and in revision petition No.3765 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sukram Pal decided on 14.01.2015. 

9.      However there is no dispute as far as the opinion expressed by Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid case law is concerned, but, the O.Ps. cannot derive any benefit  from the abovesaid case laws because they are based on altogether different facts.  In those cases insured failed to prove that information was given to insurance company immediately whereas it is not so in the present case.  It is alleged by the complainant that he lodged FIR on 07.08.2011 and also gave information to the insurance company. In reply it was alleged by insurance company that complainant informed about his claim on 30.08.2011.  It is no where alleged that no information was given.  Information and lying claim are altogether different.  If complainant did not inform the company immediately then it should have been specifically alleged that no information was given.  In the absence of specific plea to this effect it cannot be presumed that his averment to this effect is wrong and he is not entitled to this compensation.  He lodged FIR  with the police without any delay and untrace report was also given by additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar on 04.10.2012, copy of which is EX.C-10. 

10.    More so, at the time of insurance, cover note Ex.C-6 was issued on 06.08.2011.  It is no where mentioned therein that terms and conditions of the policy were supplied at the time.  Rather it is mentioned in column  with bold letters to write complete address for on time and accurate delivery of policy documents. “

11.    It shows that the terms and conditions were not supplied to the insured at that time.  Insurance company has failed to prove that as and when the terms and conditions were supplied to him.  It is the duty of the respondents to prove that terms and conditions were explained to the insured at the time of obtaining the policy as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pabbati Sridevi & Others 2013 (1) CLT 589.  It is specifically laid down therein that unless and until the terms and conditions are explained to the insured at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, they are not binding upon the insured.  The cover note is issued at the time of obtaining the insurance and insurance policy is sent lateron.  When this fact is not proved, the O.Ps. cannot allege that the complainant was not entitled for any relief.

12.    The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority issued instructions not to reject the claim on the ground of delay only.  For ready reference the relevant portion of the instructions is reproduced as under:-

“The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents. 

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.

The insurers’ decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds.  It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work  isolation and is not absolute.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without

compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policyholders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.

Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution. It is also advised that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained , recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.”

          From the perusal of these instructions, it is clear that complainant is entitled for claim on non- standard basis in the present case.  Learned District forum did not take into consideration this aspect.  No other point is urged before us.

13.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is held entitled for 75% of the insured amount on non-standard basis. Thus the appeal is partly allowed.     The respondents is directed to pay Rs.11,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. With this  modification,  appeal stands disposed of.

 

October 06th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.