Delhi

East Delhi

CC/759/2013

SUKHBIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLA MANDALAM - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  759/13

 

1. Shri Sukhbir

S/o Shri Nathu Ram

R/o Village Kheri Battar

Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana                                       …….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Manager- Cholamandalam MS Gen Ins. Co. Ltd.

1^st Floor, Plot No. 6, Pusa Road,

Near Metro Pillar No. 81

New Delhi – 110 005

 

2. The Manager- Cholamandalam MS Gen Ins. Co. Ltd.

9-B, DLF Cyber City

Tower-B, Phase-III, 2^nd Floor

Gurgaon (Branch office of OP-1)

 

3. M/s. Supreme Mobiles Ltd.               - Deleted

Authorized Dealer : Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

473-74, Automobile Market

Hisar, Haryana                                                                  ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 06.09.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 01.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 02.05.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Sukhbir against              M/s. Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. (OP-1) and M/s. Supreme Mobiles Ltd.(OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased Bol SLX MDI-TC 2 WD NGT BS 3 7 STR RPHCPW having serial no. A5L 90645, Engine No. GHA4K75176, Chassis no. A5L 90645, Colour AO White make-2010 (Bolaro) for a sum of Rs. 6,27,000/- from M/s. Supreme Mobiles Ltd., authorized dealer of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra, vide invoice No. SM/5850/10-11 dated 01.12.2010, which was financed from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.  It was got registered with the Registering Authority Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani and Registration No.               HR-19F/1977.  The vehicle was insured with M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (OP-2) vide policy no. 8173670 for one year ending 30.11.2011. 

          It is stated that on 18.04.2011, Mr. Surender Kumar, S/o           Lok Ram, a friend of the complainant had to take his wife to Jammu, who was to appear in EET Papers commencing from 20.04.2011.  He was having a valid and genuinely issued diving license.  When he reached Jalandhar at about 9.30/10.15 p.m., due to rains and pitch dark, they stayed at Suri Guest House, Jalandhar having booked a room vide invoice No. 173 dated 19.04.2011.  The vehicle was parked outside the said guest house duly locked on the assurance given by the Manager that during night a watchman was there to guard the vehicles parked outside the guest house.  However, when Shri Surender Kumar woke up in the morning and checked the vehicle, it was found missing.  Manager of M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (OP-1) was informed through mail immediately.  FIR no. 82 of dated 19.04.2011 was also lodged at Police Station, Navi Baradari, Jalandhar immediately at early next morning at 6.45 a.m. 

Mr. Surender Kumar engaged a taxi and reached Jammu and on his return from there at Charkhi Dadri, the complainant Sukhbir sent copy of FIR to OPs and OP-1 advised the complainant to continue paying the installments to OP-3 regularly with the assurance that his claim would be settled within a short period.  He filed insurance claim alongwith copies of RC, FIR, Insurance and Untrace Report/Adam Patta Report dated 19.07.2011.  It has been stated that officials of OP-1 has been putting him off in settlement of his insurance claim and ultimately they conveyed to him by the office of OP-2 at Gurgaon Branch that his insurance claim was not maintainable as he had informed late about theft of insured vehicle.

Though, he informed immediately and FIR was prompt as the same was lodged immediately at the very time of morning on 19.04.2011 when theft was detected and before parking the insured vehicle, the person on wheels was having valid driving license.  Thus, it has been stated that OP-1 has been guilty of rendering and providing deficient service.  Hence, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 6,27,000/-  alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of theft till the date of payments with the direction to OP-2 not to insist upon payment of any further installment as it was at its instance that the vehicle was got insured with OP-1.  An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- have been claimed on account of mental pain and agony alongwith other expenses.             

3.       In reply of OP-1&2, they have taken various pleas stating that immediately on receipt of the complaint they appointed independent investigator Mr. S.S. Bedi on 24.05.2011 to investigate the case who contacted the complainant and after investigation submitted a report on 13.06.2011 and after going through the investigation report, it was found that there was 36 days delay in intimation of loss to the respondent.  Therefore, the complainant deprived the respondent an opportunity to check and investigate the circumstances of alleged theft immediately after occurrence. 

They have stated that the complainant have been in breach of policy condition no. 1 of the policy which states “Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require.  Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured.  Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest of fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy.  In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender”. 

          Thus, it has been stated that since there was violation of condition no. 1 of Terms & Conditions of insurance policy and contract of insurance on account of 36 days delay in sending intimation to the respondent, they were constrained to repudiate the claim of complainant on 22.08.2011.  Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of insurance company.  The present complaint involved adjudication of question of complicated facts which will require leading of elaborate evidence by the parties which cannot be done under the summary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Thus, the complaint was said to be dismissed.  Insurance of the vehicle with the insurance company was not denied.  Other facts have also been denied.  Thus, they have denied their liability. 

          No reply was filed on behalf of OP-3, but he filed an application for deletion of their name from array of parties.  No reply to this application was filed by the complainant.

4.       In support of its case, the complainant Shri Sukhbir examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

          In defence, OP-1 & 2 has examined Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Assistant Manager (Legal) who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in their reply.  He has also got exhibited copy of investigation report (Ex.DW1/2), insurance policy (Ex.DW1/3), repudiation letter (Ex.DW1/3), affidavit (Ex.DW1/1), intimation sent to the complainant in respect of repudiation of claim (Ex.DW1/4).

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  Complainant did not put the appearance though notice was sent to him.  The argument which has been advanced on behalf of insurance company has been that there has been a delay of 36 days in sending intimation to the Insurance Company.  . 

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the documents placed on record.  If a look is made to the FIR, it states that date of occurrence has been of 18.04.2011 and the information has been given to the police station on 19.04.2011 at 06.45 hours meaning thereby that immediately in the early morning     Mr. Surender Singh, relative of the complainant who was driving the vehicle, made the complaint. 

          From perusal of the testimony of the complainant Sukhbir, he has stated that he immediately sent copy of FIR to the insurance company which assured that the claim will be settled.  However, he has not put anything on record to show as to when he has informed to the insurance company.  No doubt, he has not placed anything on record as to when he has informed to the insurance company, but from the testimony of Shri Ashutosh, Asstt. Manager (Legal), who have been examined on behalf of OP-1 and 2, there is nothing in his testimony to show as to when the complainant submitted the claim with the insurance company.  They have only taken the delay from the report of the investigator (Ex.DW1/2) in respect of the delay in intimation of loss. 

If report of the investigator (Ex.DW1/2) is perused, it is noticed that under the head “Summary of the Claim” under column ‘Claim Number’, the same has been left as blank.  Further under the head “Claim Snapshot”, under the column ‘Date of Intimation to CMGICL’, it has also been left as blank and under the column ‘Date of Intimation to RTO’, the date has been mentioned as 25.05.2011.  However, under the head ‘Visit to Insured’ under the column ‘Date of Intimation to CMGICL and reason for delay, if any’ – the date of intimation has been mentioned as 19.04.2011.   

          It seems that the insurance company has taken the period of 36 days delay from the date when the complainant has informed to the RTO.  The intimation to RTO does not have any bearing on the claim of the complainant.  Since the insurance company have not placed anything on record as to when the complainant have intimated to the insurance company in respect of the theft of vehicle, but under the head “Visit to Insured” in the column ‘Date of intimation to CMCICL and reason for delay, if any’, the date of intimation has been mentioned as 19.04.2011, it cannot be said that there was delay in intimation to the insurance company. 

The fact that the complainant has got the FIR registered immediately after the incident i.e. on 19.04.2011 at 06:45 hours, though, the vehicle is alleged to have stolen on 18.04.2011, however, the report of the investigator shows that the date of intimation was given to the insurance company on 19.04.2011.  When the intimation was given to the insurance company on 19.04.2011; date of incident has been 18-19/4/11 itself, the question of delay of 36 days does not arise.  Therefore, the claim rejected by the insurance company on the ground of delay was not justified and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  When the insurance company has rejected the claim of the complainant without any reason, this has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there has been deficiency on the part of M/s. Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Company (CMMSGIC) (OP-1) and CMMSGIC (OP-2).  There is no liability of M/s. Supreme Mobiles Ltd. (OP-3) as they are only dealers.  Therefore, their application for deletion of their name from array of parties is allowed.  They stand deleted from array of parties.  We, therefore, order that the Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. (OP-1&2) shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,44,635/- (IDV-10% depreciation) alongwith 9% interest from the date of rejection of claim i.e. 13.06.2011.  They are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- compensation on account of mental agony and pain.  This includes the cost of litigation also.  If the said amount is not paid within 30 days, the total amount of Rs. 5,74,635/- will carry 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President