The complainant Sri Neeraj Kumar has filed this complaint petition against The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Ltd., o.p for realizing of Rs. 3,16,750/- as sum assured, Rs. 1 lacs as physical and mental harassment & Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost., and Rs. 50,000/- as deficiency in service, total of Rs. 4,86,750/- with 12 % interest p.a. from the date of occurrence i.e 27-01-2017 till realization.
. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the complainant got insurance of his tractor bearing no.- BR06GA-1435 from o.p bearing policy no.- 210201316P 106104614. The validity of the insurance was since 20.07.2016 to 19-07-2017. The further case is that during tenure of insurance, in the midnight of 27-01-2017, the aforesaid tractor was stolen away by unknown thief from the Bathan of Sohit Sah of Sohagapur Diyar. After knowing the occurrence, complainant searched the same and on failure he registered a case in the Paru P.S as Paru P.S. Case No. 21/2017 in the morning on next day. The further case is that the father of the complainant was hospitalize since 24-01-2017 in the clinic of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey that is Arayan Memorial Hospital. The further case is that on 28-01-2017., It was Saturday and next day was Sunday, so the complainant went to hospital in the treatment of his father. On 06-02-2017, he informed in the office of insurance regarding theft of the tractor. The further case is that on the date of filing of complaint the investigation was pending and o.p demanded, illegal money but complainant didn’t fulfill the same, so on 20-02-2017 the o.p company repudiated the claim of the petitioner showing 10 days delay in lodging information of the incident. The further case is that on 03-03-2017, the complainant filed a petition before o.p company and narrated the story of treatment of his father and explained the delay but the company didn’t consider on the same and on 17-03-2017. He refused to pay the claim amount and as such there is deficiency on the part of the o.p.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of Insurance of vehicle No. BR-06GA-1435 annexure-1, photocopy of Information to police regarding theft of tractor annexure-2, photocopy of R.C. of vehicle BR-06GA1435 annexure-3, photocopy of Tax Token annexure-4, photocopy of certificate regarding treatment of father of complainant Shyam Nandan Choudhary-annexure-5, photocopy of discharge Ticket annexure-5 (ka) , photocopy of Information to insurance com regarding theft of tractor on 06-02-2017- annexure-6, photocopy of repudiation letter annexure-6 (a), photocopy of request letter of complainant to consider his claim sympathically annexure-7, photocopy of letter dated 17-03-2017 of o.p. company to Neeraj Kumar annexure - 7 (a)
On behalf of complainant the complainant has examined himself on affidavit as AW-1. Some documents have also been exhibited on his behalf which is as follows.
- C.C. of order dated 20-01-2019 exhibit-1
- C.C. of FIR of Paru P.S. Case No. 21/2017 exhibit -2
- C.C. of Final form exhibit-3
On issuance of summon, the o.p appeared on 26-11-2018 and filed his w.s. on 09-01-2019 with prayer to dismiss the case. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint petition is not maintainable due to violation of policy condition, the complainant did not give written intimation regarding the theft to the insurance company immediately. it has been further mentioned in the w.s. that the complainant has intentionally and negligently parked the vehicle in open space at the Bathan at Sohagapur Diyar and left the same without any safety measure, so he himself is liable for the theft of the vehicle. The o.p has also annexed photo copy of the Judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi passed in revision petition no. 4749/2013 as annexure-I (A).
O.p company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the intimation of the theft was given to the o.p company after lapse of 10 days and as such he failed to discharge the duty of an insured has deprived the company to take any action in time.
Learned Lawyer for the o.p has submitted that there is delay of 10 days in filing information to the o.p company and as such the same is in violation of terms of policy. He relied upon the order dated 16-12-2014 by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in revision petition 4749/2013 in the case of Sri Ram General Insurance company Ltd. Vs Mahendra Jat and another order dated 09-12-2009 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in first appeal no.- 321/2005 in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane respondent.
The learned lawyer for the complainant has submitted that the facts of this case does not correlate with the facts of the cases filed on behalf of o.ps . He further submits that in this case complainant has sufficiently explained on the delay as father of complainant was under treatment and he was in his service, so he could not inform the insurance company. He further submits that in the cases cited by the o.p. lawyer, the delay, was not sufficiently explained so the Hon’ble N.C. has passed the order as the complainant had not discharged his duty properly. He further submits that the insurance company (the o.p ) has also not filed the terms and condition on the basis of which he repudiated the claim.
O.P company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that he intimated to him after delay of 10 days and as such the same is against the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned Lawyer for the o.p has relied on ruling of order dated 16-12-2014 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in revision petition no. 4749/2013, Sri Ram General Manager, insurance company Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Jat and order dated 09-12-2009 passed by Hon’ble N.C. in first appeal no.- 321/2005, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane. In Both the cases of Hon’ble Commission has rejected the claim of the petition on the ground of unexplained delay in sending information to the o.p. But in this case the complainant has explained the delay of 10 days as his father was hospitalize in Arayan Memorial Hospital Muzaffarpur since 24-01-2017, before the occurrence. The complainant has further stated in the complaint petition that he was busy in the treatment his father and 28-01-2017 was Saturday and next day Sunday, So he has filed the intimation before the o.p company on 06-02-2017. The complainant has himself examined as AW-1 and he has supported the facts stated in complaint petition in his deposition. On affidavit he has informed the police in the next morning without delay. The complainant has also filed photocopy of certificate of Aryan Memorial Hospital dated 10-02-2017 of the effect that his father Shayam Nandan Choudhary was suffering from in infective hepatitis with cerebro vascular accident and he was hospital since 24-01-2017 to 10-02-2017. He has also filed discharge ticket of Aryan Memorial Hospital with respect to Shyam Nandan Choudhary. In this way the complainant has tried to explain the delay caused by him in giving information regarding the theft, to the o.p. So, the fact of this case is different from the facts of the cases cited above. The Act itself provide regarding Condon of action delay in section 24 A clause-2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The o.p company has within filed the terms and condition of the policy nor controverted the fact adduced by the complainant in explaining delay. So, in our considered opinion the o.p company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of delay.
Complainant have also proved his other facts regarding the theft of the vehicle by adducing oral evidence and documentary evidence as exhibit 1 to 3 .
The o.p has also stated in his w.s. that the vehicle was parked in open space at Bathan Sohagapur Diyar and he has not taken safety measure Bathan is the place where animals are kept and the same is under inspection of person who is owner of respective Bathan. So parking of tractor at Bathan does not come under negligent Act.
On the basis of above discussion we are of the opinion that the o.p has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is deficiency in service for not providing the claim of the complainant.
Accordingly, the complaint petition is allowed and the o.p insurance company is directed to pay Rs. 3,16,750/- as sum assured with 7 % interest p.a since filing of complaint petition, Rs. 20,000/- as physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within two months from the date of order /, on failure to pay the aforesaid amount the o.p shall be liable to pay the same with 9 % p.a. interest till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.
