Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/713/2014

Natiosnal Ins. Co. Ltd. Through Manager (Legal)/Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandva Khatik s/o Bhanru ji Khatik - Opp.Party(s)

B.Balakrishna

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 713 /2014

 

National Insurance Co. through Manager Patwari Building, Above PNB, 1^st floor, M.G.Marg, Kachahari Road, Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Chandwa Khateek r/o village Siyar Tehsil Sarwada via Fatehgarh, Distt. Ajmer.

 

Date of Order 30.4.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal- Member

 

Mr.Prashant Mantri counsel for the appellants

Mr.Vibhor Gaur counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

2

 

DCF Ajmer dated 6.6.2014 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken a insurance of his tractor no.RJ 01 RA 1622 from the appellant company. This tractor has been stolen in the mid night of 2-3 February 2010. The theft claim of the tractor was repudiated by the company against which a complaint was filed before the learned DCF Ajmer which allowed the complaint and directed the company to pay the sub-standard claim of 75% of the IDV of the tractor.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that complainant was plying this tractor for commercial purposes whereas the policy was only for using the tractor for agriculture purposes. Thus, the tractor was used in violation of the policy conditions. The second argument is that the learned DCF has also allowed the claim for trolly also while the trolly had not been stolen and there was a separate cover for the trolly for Rs.50,000/-. The third argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the intimation of the incident was given to the company after six days and it is also violation of the policy conditions and the company was deprieved of its right to

3

 

conduct an independent investigation into the incident. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on Civil Appeal No. 6739/ 2010 ( Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha ), 2015 NCJ 201 (NC) Ramesh Chandra Meghwanshi Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ), I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC) (Sriram General Insurance Co. Vs. Mahender Jat ), IV (2014) CPJ 350 (NC) ( Kulwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co.) on the point that delay in informing the Insurance Company is fatal. He has also argued that in theft cases no sub-standard claim can be passed for violation of the conditions as laid down in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha's case.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has refuted these arguments. He has relied on the judgment passed in Nitin Khandelwal's case in which it has been held that violation of the conditions regarding user of the vehicle is not germain in theft case. He has also submitted that there has been no delay in informing the Insurance Company and has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of the policy. He has argued that this was an agriculture policy and conditions as mentioned in s.14 of this policy does not prescribe any time limit during which the company shall be informed of the incident. He has submitted that under this condition the complainant is obliged only to

4

 

immediately inform the police of the incident and shall co-operate with the company to secure conviction of the accused. whereas the learned counsel for the company has drawn our attention to the general conditions of the policy under which information to the company should be given immediately after the incident.

 

We have heard the arguments of respective counsels. As regards the commercial use of the tractor, there is no evidence on record to assume that at the time of incident the tractor was being used commercially. The incident happened on 3.2.2010 when the tractor was being parked outside the residence of the complainant from which it was stolen. The argument that tractor was being used for commercial purpose has no merits. Moreover the violation of this condition is not germane in theft case as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitin Khandelwal's case.

 

The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the separate cover for the trolly. While the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the policy in which the insured value of the tractor and trolly has been mentioned as Rs.3,30,000/- but the learned

5

 

counsel for the appellant insurance company has drawn our attention to page no.3 of the policy which clearly states that trolly insured value was Rs.50,000/- and tractor was insured for Rs. 2,80,000/-. Admittedly trolly has not been stolen and the learned DCF has erred in assuming the consolidated IDV of Rs.3,30,000/- and awarding 75% as sub-standard claim.

 

The third argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was there was a delay of 6-7 days in informing the Insurance Company of the incident. In this regard the complainant has mentioned that he had obtained the insurance through bank from which this tractor was got financed and after the incident he went to the bank and informed the bank of the incident. It is also admitted that the Insurance Company was informed of the incident by the bank and not the complainant. It was natural for the complainant to go to the bank from which it had taken finance and informed them of the theft. In view of this we do not find that any inordinate delay has been committed by the complainant for any ulterior motive and we find that this delay has been explained. The IRDA also issued a circular for the Insurance Companies in which it has been enjoined upon that claims in respect of theft cases should not be mechanically rejected on the ground of delayed intimation and we find that

6

 

delay of 6-7 days cannot invite repudiation of the claim.

 

Thus, we partially accept this appeal and award passed by the learned DCF is modified to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to receive 75% as sub-standard claim of the IDV of the tractor which is stated to have been Rs. 2,80,000/-. Rest of the order is maintained.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm