The complainant Sri Fuleshwar Singh has filed this complaint petition against Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Muzaffarpur and two others (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 26,631/- as declared value of theft property, and stamp papers, Rs. 20,000/- for compensation for mental, agony, and physical harassment, and Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost. With 18 % p.a. interest on the sought amount from the date of theft of vehicle till date of final payment/realization.
The brief, facts of the case is that complainant Fuleshwar Singh is duly registered owner of vehicle Hero Spender Plus bearing Registration No.- BR06-W5723 and the said vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. Vide Policy No.- 39010231136203381095 effective from 20-12-2013 to 19-12-2014 with the value of Rs. 26,331/-.The further case is that on 07-02-2014 the complainant went to Hathauri old market with his aforesaid motor cycle and kept the said vehicle in standing position by locking it near shop of Vibhash Kumar and went to Haat to buy the vegetables. He returned at 05:45 P.M. from the haat, found that the vehicle was not there and someone had stolen the aforesaid motorcycle. The complainant tried his best to find out the stolen vehicle but all went in vain and he would not find out the stolen vehicle, thereafter the complainant went to Hathauri P.S. at 8 PM on the same date where the Munsi of Hathauri Police asked the complainant to come on 10-02-2014 because the officer-in-charge was not available in the police station for two days. The complainant went on 10-02-2014 to the Hathauri police station and lodged the FIR for theft of motor cycle No. BR06-W5723 as Hathauri P.S. Case No. 15/2014 One of the two keys, was in the dicky of the concerned motor cycle. The further case is that the complainant informed the Insurance Company within 24 hours regarding the theft of the vehicle in question and he informed the D.T.O. on 18-01-2016. The further case is that after investigation police submitted the final form showing case ‘true but no clue’. The further case is that the Learned C.J.M. Muzaffapur accepted the final form. The further case is that the complainant approached the Branch Manager, along with all the required documents and requested him to settle the claim but the concerned Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company told the complainant to submit Smart card of certificate of registration. On saying by the complainant that the same has not been issued by Branch Manager, report was called from the D.T.O Muzaffarpur through his administrative officer. The D.T.O Muzaffarpur confirmed the complainant‘s version and sent the report. The further case is that on 28-01-2016, Branch Manager, of the National Insurance Company directed the complainant to submit relevant original document, key of the said stolen vehicle, 2-blank Non Judicial stamp papers each of Rs.100 form- 28, 29 & 30 each in two sets which was received by the Insurance Company on 28-01-2016, but the o.ps have not paid a single farthing about the theft claim so complainant sent a legal notice on 13-05-2016 through his lawyer but the Insurance Company neither replied the legal notice nor repudiated the claim. So, the complainant filed this complaint petition.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of Form of certificate of registration-annexure-1, photocopy of Policy Schedule annexure-2, photocopy of Written petition filed by Fuleshwar Singh to officer in charge Hathauri P.S. annexure-3, photocopy of formal FIR -annexure-4, photocopy of Final Form annexure-5, photocopy of order - sheet dated 10-12-2015 & 04-01-2016 passed by Learned V.K. Chaubey, Sub-Judge-10 cum ACJM Muzafarpur annexure-6, photocopy of Letter dated 04-01-2016 of National Insurance Company to D.T.O. Muzaffarpur to confirm as to whether Smart Card was issued or not. -annexure-7, photocopy of Written petition filed by Fuleshwar Singh to National Insurance Company annexure-8, photocopy of legal notice annexure-9.
On issuance of notices o.ps appeared and filed their w.s. on 24-01-2019 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the case filed is not maintainable and is fit to be rejected. It has been further mentioned that the complainant has no cause of action against the o.ps. It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that the occurence on theft was taken place on 07-02-2014 whereas the FIR was lodged on 10-02-2014 after the delay of 3 days which is violation of condition No.-1 of the policy. It has been further mentioned that the complainant made late intimation of the said theft to the o.p on 17-02-2014 i.e 10 days after said theft, so it is also violation of condition no.-1. It has been further mentioned that the few document is still to be submitted. It has been further mentioned that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of o.p. Filing of information, one key of the motor cycle and some documents is an admitted fact.
The complainant has examined himself as AW-1.
No evidence has been adduced on behalf of o.ps.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant filed intimation regarding theft and claim papers before o.ps with key of theft Motorcycle to the o.ps. The o.ps have neither repudiated the claim nor accepted the same. The o.ps have raised the question in their w.s. that there is 3 days late information before the police and 10 days to the Insurance Company which is violation of condition No.-1 of the Policy. The complainant has stated in his complaint petition regarding the late information to the police and has stated that he approached to the Hathauri P.S. on the same date but Munsi asked him to come on 10-02-2014 because the officer-in-charge was not available at the police station, so he retruned and further went at P.S. on 10-02-2014 and on the same date FIR was instituted. Photocopy of petition filed before officer incharge of Hathauri P.S has been filed as annexure- (3) in which he has stated that he searched the theft motor cycle on his own level but could not succeed, then he filed. Petition on 10-02-2014. He has not mentioned the fact in the FIR that on 07-02-2014, he went at P.S. where Munsi asked him that officer incharge is not at Police Station and he directed to come on 10-02-2014 so first version i.e written report (annexure-3) is contradictory to the complaint petition on the point of delay.
On the other point that is 10 days late information after theft to the o.ps, in para-6 of the complaint petition it has been stated that insurance company was informed within 24 hours of the theft. The complainant has supported the above fact in para-3 of his examination-in-chief. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of o.ps to rebut the evidence of complainant (AW-1) so the late intimation to the o.ps is not proved.
The learned Lawyer for the o.ps has relied the findings of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C New Delhi given in first appeal No.- 321/2005, New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s Trilochan Jane decided on 09-12-2009. In the above case Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C New Delhi has accepted appeal of appellant and observed as follows-“ In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediately steps to get the vehicle traced. The Insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about theft of the car for 9 days would be a violation of condition of the police as it deprives the insurance of valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace /help in tracing the vehicle.”
On the other hand Learned Lawyer for complainant relied on the findings of Hon’ble S.C. in the case of Om Prakash V/S Reliance General Insurance Civil Appeal No.- 15611/2017 decided on 04-10-2017. The above case is also on the fact i.e on delay of information of theft to the police. In para-11 of the above judgment Hon’ble S.C. has observed as follows.-
It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances . The decision of the insurer to reject the claim, has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aim at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”
The o.ps company neither investigated the claim nor repudiate after filing of the sane in the year 2014. As per circular of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vide notification dt. - 16-10-2002, it is the duty of the Insurance Company to settle the claim of the insured within 6 month if investigation required. The o.ps have not settled the claim of the complainant in more than 6 months and the same is pending on the ground of delay. The complainant has succeeded to prove that he had intimated about the theft to the Insurance Company Within 24 hours so it was duty of the Insurance Company to investigate the matter and try to find out truth but he didn’t do so.
On the basis of above discussion and the guidelines of the Hon’ble S.C. as mentioned above we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency on the part of o.ps and the rulling filed on their behalf didn’t help him.
Accordingly, the complaint petition is allowed and the o.ps are directed to pay Rs. 26,331/- as declared value of amout of theft property, Rs.20,000/- for compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within two months from the date of order/, on failure they shall be responsible to pay the above amount with 9 % p.a. interest till realization. Let a copy of this order to be furnished to both the parties as per rule.
