BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:184 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 01.09.2016.
Date of Decision:24..05.2018
Satender aged 26 years son of Shri Bhulan Kumar, resident of Norangabad, Tehsil Bamla, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Regd & Head Office Dare House, 2nd Floor, No. 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai through its General Manager.
- Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Bhiwani through its Branch Manager, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Madan Pal Singh Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Satender Ghanghas, Advocate proxy counsel of
Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 1.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant is registered owner of a motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-16N/5494 and the same was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy bearing No.3361/00349498/000/00 for the period w.e.f. 12.2.2015 to 12.2.2016. On 7.12.2015 the above said insured vehicle was stolen in the area of Sector-46, Gurgaon and FIR bearing No.1172 dated 9.12.2015 under Section 379 IPC was registered in the concerned police station. It is further alleged that intimation regarding the theft of the insured vehicle was given to the OPs and after completion of all the formalities, the claim was submitted with the OPs but the OPs have failed to pay the insured amount. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein theft had taken place on 7.12.2015 and the matter was reported to the police on 9.12.2015. Moreover, information to the insurance company was given 9.5.2016 i.e. after five months and there is no reason as to why such a long time was taken by the complainant and this delay is fatal to the case of the complainant. So, he is not entitled to any compensation from the respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.11.2016.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into the evidence affidavit Annexure C1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP no. 1 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the motor cycle in question was stolen on 7.12.2015 from Gurgaon and FIR No. 1172 dated 9.12.2015 was registered with the concerned police station. The complainant intimated about the theft of the motor cycle to the OP. He submitted that despite repeated requests of the complainant, the OP has not paid the claim to the complainant. He submitted that the OP is liable to pay the insured amount of Rs. 84,480/- of the motor cycle to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgment:-
I Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and Anr. 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) SC- 42.
8. Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the vehicle in question was stolen from Gurgaon and the policy in question was issued from Chandigarh branch of the respondent company. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. He submitted that the complainant intimated the OP regarding the theft of the motor cycle on 9.5.2016 while the theft occurred on 7.12.2015. The investigator submitted his report dated 21.6.2016 alongwith the statement of complainant recorded by him. He submitted that there is delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR and there is delay of 154 days in intimation to the OP. As such the complainant has committed the breach of terms and conditions of the policy ad OP is not liable to pay claim to the complainant. The complainant has failed to give any clarification to the letter dated 10.5.2016 issued by the OP to the complainant regarding the delay in the intimation to the company. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 5.8.2016 issued to the complainant. The counsel for the OP relied upon the following judgments:-
I Gopinath Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. in Revision Petition No. 2067 of 2016 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
II Shimbhu Singh Shekhawat Versus Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. in Revision Petition No. 1356 of 2016 of Hon’ble National Commission.
III Ashish Kumar Jaiswal Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. I (2017) CPJ 529 (NC).
9. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the record. The OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is delay of 154 days in intimation to the insurance company. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen on 7.12.2015 and the FIR was registered on 9.12.2015 with the concerned police station. The counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant immediately approached the police for lodging the FIR but the police asked to trace the motor cycle at his own level, only thereafter the police lodged the FIR on 9.12.2015. The complainant could not explain why there is delay of 154 days in intimation to the company in his pleadings. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Om Parkash (supra). It has been held as under:-
It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightway to 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 marking a claim is satisfactory 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 shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims 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.
10. The OP has not disputed the theft of the vehicle. The complainant has also produced the untraced report as Annexure C-4. The investigator in his report Annexure R-4 has also confirmed the theft of the motor cycle in question. The genuineness of the theft of the motor cycle is not challenged by the OP. Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the OP. We direct the OP to pay the 75 per cent of the insured amount to the complainant. This order shall be complied by the OP within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till the date of the payment of the award amount to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 24.05.2018.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
