Punjab

Sangrur

CC/304/2016

Amritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri H.S.Dallut

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  304

                                                Instituted on:    24.02.2016

                                                Decided on:       09.09.2016

 

Amritpal Singh son of Vijay Lachman resident of Village Santokhpura, District Sangrur now R/o H.No.62, Street No.3, New Green Enclave, Near Sunny Tower Sullarm Road, Patiala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Company, Peeranwala Gate, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite party.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri H.S.Dullat, Adv.

For Opp.party          :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Amritpal Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by getting insured his Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing registration number PB-13-V-5454 from the OP for Rs.55,000/- for the period from 24.12.2013 to 23.12.2014 vide cover note number 1117023113P106428264. It is further averred that the vehicle in question of the complainant was stolen on 15.4.2014 when the same was parked at Leela Bhawan Market, near Yes Bank Patiala along with all the documents, as such the complainant immediately intimated the PS Civil Lines, Patiala, but the police told to the complainant to search the said motorcycle, but the complainant did not trace out the said motorcycle and on 3.5.2014 the police of PS Civil Lines Patiala lodged the FIR and thereafter the complainant got issued the duplicate RC of the vehicle. The order of acceptance of untraced report was received by the complainant on 2.1.2015 from the court of Judicial Magistrte 1^st Class, Patiala. It is further averred that the complainant also submitted all the required documents to the OP for settlement of the claim, but the OP did not settle the claim despite serving of legal notice dated 22.12.2015 to the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.55,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service, that the complainant is false and baseless and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is stated further that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief because the complainant has breached the terms and conditions, as the complainant was required to give in writing a notice to the OP immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage, but the complainant informed the police only on 3.5.2014 i.e. after 18 days of the alleged accident and intimation of theft was given to the Op on 27.5.2014 after about 42 days. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP under the policy in question for Rs.55,000/-. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle was stolen on 15.4.2014, but it is stated that  the FIR was lodged with the police on 27.5.2014 after a delay of about 42 days. However, it is further stated that the OP issued final reminder dated 27.10.2014 to the complainant asking him to provide the copy of untraced report otherwise his claim will be treated as No Claim.  As such, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and any further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of FIR, Ex.C-3 copy of untraced report, Ex.C-4 copy of RC, Ex.C-5 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice and Ex.C-7 postal receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3 affidavit, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 27.5.2014, Ex.OP-5 copy of letter dated 12.8.2015, Ex.OP-6 copy of affidavit dated 11.8.2015, Ex.OP-7 copy of statement of complainant, Ex.OP-8 copy of letter dated 22..2015, Ex.OP-9 copy of letter dated 22.9.2014, Ex.OP-10 copy of letter dated 27.10.2014 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his motorcycle in question with the OP as is evident from the copy of insurance policy on record as Ex.C-5.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 15.4.2014 from the Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala. It is also on record that the complainant got lodged the FIR with the police, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2 and the complainant has also produced on record the copy of untraced report dated 2.1.2015 accepted by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Patiala which is on record as Ex.C-3.  But, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is delay in lodging of FIR and intimation of occurrence to the opposite party and non production of the copy of untraced report.   Now, the only question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant intimated the police and the opposite party after an inordinate delay and that whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim or not.

 

6.             The case of the complainant is that there is no delay on his part in intimating the police about the theft, as immediately after the theft of the vehicle, the complainant visited the Civil Lines Patiala police station to lodge the FIR, but the police told the complainant to search the motorcycle and the police only recorded the FIR on 3.5.2014.  To support such a contention, the complainant has produced on record his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1.  A bare perusal of the affidavit clearly reveal that he went to the police station to lodge the FIR immediately on  15.4.2014, but the police only recorded the same on 3.5.2014.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has clearly proved on record that he went to the police immediately on 15.4.2014 to lodge the FIR about the theft of the vehicle in question.    On the other hand, the OP has produced on record the copy of insurance policy as Ex.OP-1 and terms and conditions as Ex.OP-2.  We have very carefully perused the written reply as well as the affidavit of Shri Harmeet Singh, Senior Branch Manager, Ex.OP-3, but it nowhere shows that the policy along with the terms and conditions were ever supplied to the complainant nor the OP has produced any documentary evidence to show that the same were provided to the complainant, when there is specific allegation of the complainant that he was never supplied the policy as well as its terms and conditions at any time. However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the late submission of the intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the OP and late intimation of theft to the police.

 

7.               The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant immediately went to the police immediately on 15.4.2014 (date of theft of the vehicle), but the police recorded the FIR only on 03.5.2014, but in this respect we feel that the action was to be taken only by the police to record the FIR, when the complainant has given the intimation to the police about the theft. To support such a contention, reliance can also be placed on the citation of the Hon’ble National Commission pronounced in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Gurmeet Kaur and others 2015(3) CLT 476, wherein it has been held that if the complainant has given the intimation about theft to the police promptly, then the complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that the OP should not repudiate the bonafide claims as done by the OP in the present case. To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 (HR), wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sukhram Kashyap versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA/13/272, decided on 11.4.2013 by the Chhattisgarh State Commission, wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) has been relied upon, wherein it has been held that the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.   

 

8.             Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OP even did not supply the policy as well as its terms and conditions.  It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Charan Dass 2012(3) CPR 618 (NC), that a case where the vehicle was stolen and the claim was repudiated on the ground that there was inordinate delay of about ten months on giving intimation regarding the theft of vehicle, whereas the case of the complainant is that he was only supplied the cover note, but did not supply the insurance policy and he was not aware of the terms and conditions and there was no clear cut proof of service of policy upon the complainant.  As such, repudiation of the claim was held unjustified.  In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has also cited Modern Insulators Ltd. versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000)1 CPJ (SC). The same is the view of the Hon’ble  National Commission in Paresh Mohanlal Parmar versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others 2011(3) CPJ 146 (NC). We may mention that in the present case also, the OP has not produced any conclusive proof to show that the terms and conditions along with the policy were ever provided to the complainant.

 

9.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The vehicle in question is insured for Rs.55,000/- for the period from 24.12.2013 to 23.12.2014 and the theft took place during the subsistence of the insurance policy, as such, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.55,000/- on account of insurance of the vehicle in question. 

 

 

10.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

 

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.55,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.02.2016 till realisation.  We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses. We also direct the complainant to execute the necessary documents, if any for transfer of the vehicle in question as required by the OP.

 

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 9, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member