Haryana

StateCommission

A/24/2015

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHUNDU RAM - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.SAINI

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      24 of 2015

Date of Institution:    09.01.2015

Date of Decision :     09.02.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Bhundu Ram s/o Sh. Peeru Ram, since deceased now represented by:

1. Phoolpati wife of late Bhundu Ram, Resident of Village Bhapora, District Bhiwani.
2. Rajpal son of late Bhundu Ram, Resident of Near Devsar Chungi Halu Mohalla, Bhiwani.
3. Dharampal son of late Bhundu Ram, Resident of Near Devsar Chungi Halu Mohalla, Bhiwani.
4. Rampal son of late Bhundu Ram, Resident of Near Devsar Chungi Halu Mohalla, Bhiwani.

                                      Respondents/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri P.S. Saini, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Bhundu Ram (Since deceased) now represented by his legal representatives-respondents No.1 to 4, was the owner of jeep bearing registration No.HR-06-4172. The jeep was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period June 20^th, 2008 to June 19^th, 2009, vide Insurance Policy Annexure R-5. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the Jeep was Rs.3,41,250/-.

2.      During the intervening night of January 27^th/28^th, 2009, the jeep was stolen. The complainant informed the Police. The Police of Police Station City Bhiwani, registered F.I.R. No.64 (Annexure R-1). The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim (Annexure R-2) with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company vide letter dated March 30^th, 2010 (Annexure R-6) repudiated claim on the ground that the jeep was insured as a private vehicle but the same was being used on hire and reward against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the jeep was stolen during the intervening night of January 27^th/28^th, 2009, whereas intimation to the police as well as the Insurance Company, was given after 8 days and 15 days respectively. It was further stated that the jeep was insured as a private vehicle whereas it was being plied on hire and reward.  It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated November 19^th, 2014, allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of repudiation till its realisation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

5.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal.

6.      At this juncture, before adverting to the facts at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’). It has been specifically mentioned in the above said circular by IRDA that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.  The operative part of the circular reads 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.”

7.      Indisputably, the jeep was stolen during the intervening night of January 27^th/28^th, 2009. F.I.R. Annexure R-1 was lodged with the Police. The accused was arrested but the jeep was not recovered. The surveyor of the Insurance Company investigated the matter and submitted report Annexure R-3. No cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant. 

8.      It is pertinent to note that the ground of delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and intimation to the Insurance Company was not taken in the repudiation letter (Annexure R-6). In the repudiation letter the ground taken was only that the jeep was being used on hire and reward whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. Thus, the Insurance Company repudiated genuine claim on one pretext or the other.  The act of the Insurance Company exhibits a total disregard to the circular dated September 20^th, 2011, of the IRDA.

9.      In view of above, the first ground on which the impugned order was assailed, is repelled.

10.    Coming now to the second contention with respect to the use of vehicle on hire and reward whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held as under:-

“12.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.” 

11.    In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

12.    Indisputably, the jeep of the complainant was insured for Rs.3,41,250/- and it was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. This being so, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the jeep on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV.

13.    For the reasons recorded supra, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

14.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 09.02.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL