DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 179 of 3.5.2016
Decided on: 31.5.2017
Ajit Singh aged about 60 years S/o S.Sardara Singh, R/o VPO Paind Kua Dary, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Branch Manager/ Divisional Manager, 2nd Floor, SC No.14-15, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala-147001.
2. L&T Finance Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Sandhu Tower, 2nd Floor, SCO No.131, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Navdeep Sharma,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for
Opposite party No.1.
Sh.Vikas Mittal,Advocate, counsel for
Opposite party No.2
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Ajit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay a sum of Rs.2,94,500/- as claim amount & Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to him alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of theft till realization or
- To grant any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased tractor make EICHER, model 2015, bearing registration No.PB11BT-4845, having engine No.523029154004 & chassis No.923111126926 .The said vehicle was got financed through OP no.2 vide loan agreement No.OKG829200F1500988121. The complainant got the vehicle insured from OP No.1 having customer Code No. 1014458319430001 , vide policy No.3380/00854543/000/00 for the period from 10.7.2015 11.15 hours to midnight on 9.7.2016. The complainant paid Rs.7879/- as premium for the sum insured of Rs.2,94,500/-. It is averred that the complainant has taken some land on theka in District Bijnor(U.P.). On 7.12.2015, when the complainant and his helper Rattan Singh S/o Sardar Singh R/o VPO Paind Kua Dary, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala were returning from Bijnor(U.P.) to their native village, reached at Mujaffar Nagar Bypass at about 7.30P.M.,they stopped the vehicle near a dhaba for taking a cup of tea. They went inside the Dhaba for taking the tea and after about 10 minutes when the complainant and his helper came outside, the tractor was missing(stolen). Both of them tried to find the tractor but all in vain. They went to the nearby police stations to lodge the FIR with regard to the theft of the vehicle but the officials at Police Stations lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other due to the jurisdiction of their respective police stations. Ultimately on 10.12.2015, DDR No.1383/15 was lodged with police station of New Mandi Mujaffar Nagar.On the basis of said DDR, FIR No.23716 dated 10.12.2015 was lodged .The complainant intimated the OP No.1 orally as well as telephonically. He received letter dated 1.4.2016, from Op no.1 having repudiated his claim . By not paying the genuine claim of the complainant, the OP no.1 committed deficiency in service for which he is suffering from mental and physical harassment.
3. On notice, OPs appeared and filed their respective written versions. In the written version filed by Op no.1it is admitted that the tractor was insured with it. It is stated that the complainant has intimated with regard to the loss after 12 days i.e. on 19.12.2015 whereas the tractor was stolen on 7.12.2015. The police report was lodged on 10.12.2015.As per conditions No.1 of the insurance policy, “ 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…”The OP also deputed Sh.Shobh Nath, Investigator, who submitted his report. After considering everything on the record., the competent authority, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, vide letter dated 1.4.2016 repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1 and the complaint may kindly be dismissed.
4. In the written version filed by Op No.2, it has taken preliminary objections that the complainant has got no cause of action against it and also there is no relief sought for against OP no.2, so the complaint is liable to dismissed against it. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got the tractor financed from it. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB, affidavit of Rattan Singh alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for OP no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Mr.Ashutosh , Manager of OP no.1 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP11 and closed the evidence. Whereas the ld. counsel for OP no.2 has closed evidence without tendering any document on record.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the tractor of the complainant was stolen on 7.12.2015, from a dhaba, situated at Mufarnagar(U.P.) and he immediately went to the nearby police station to lodge the FIR but the concerned officials of the said police station, refused to register the FIR, on the issue of jurisdiction. Ultimately on 10.12.2015, a DDR was lodged with the police station at New Mandi, Mujafarnagar and on the basis of said DDR, the FIR was also lodged on the same date. The cause of delay of three days in registration of DDR/FIR was due to jurisdiction problem of the police station and the same cannot be attributable to him. It is further pleaded that the complainant had intimated the insurance company telephonically as well as in written but inspite of that the OP No.1 repudiated his genuine claim on the flimsy ground that there is delay in intimation.
8. The ld. counsel for OP no.1 vehemently argued that tractor of the complainant was stolen on 7.12.2015, whereas he lodged the FIR on 10.12.2015 i.e. after three days and informed the OP no.1 on 19.12.2015 i.e. after 12 days of the occurrence of incidence. Since there is delay in intimation, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy, it has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
9. The ld counsel for OP no.2 has also submitted that OP no.2 being a financer had financed the tractor in question. In case, the tractor of the complainant was stolen and if it was duly inured with the insurance company, then, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and no liability can be fastened against it. Therefore, complaint filed qua it may kindly be dismissed.
10. Admittedly the complainant got insured his tractor from OP no.1 vide policy No. 3380/00854543/000/00 , for the period from 10.7.2015 to 9.7.2016 having IDV of Rs.2,94,500/-. It is also an admitted fact that the tractor in question, was stolen on 7.12.2015 at Mujafarnagar (U.P.), during the subsistence of the policy. The plea of the insurance company is that the complainant had informed it regarding the theft of his tractor on 19.12.2015, i.e. after a delay of 12 days and had lodged the FIR with the police station on 10.12.2015 i.e. after a delay of three days, from the date of occurrence of incidence i.e. 7.12.2015.As such, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the complainant is not entitled to get any insurance claim. However, no evidence has been led by the insurance company to prove that there was delay in giving information to it. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR with the police, the complainant has satisfactorily explained that the delay of three days in lodging the complaint with the police station was due to jurisdictional problem of the police station. It is pertinent to mention that in Circular Ref.:IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated September, 20th,2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority( for short ‘IRDA), it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”. In the case of Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymnanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme court had held that “deprecated the practice often adopted by the Insurance Companies of denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon the technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants”
11. In view of the above, we do not hesitate to conclude that the Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and is liable to indemnify for the loss suffered by the complainant. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. So far as the deficiency on the part of OP no.2 is concerned, it, being a financer had financed the tractor of the complainant. Neither any allegations have been leveled nor proved against it, no liability can be fastened against it. Therefore, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP no.2 and allow the same against OP no.1. The OP no.1 is directed in the following manner:
i. To pay Rs.2,94,500/-i.e. (IDV) alongwith interest @7% per annum, from the date of repudiation i.e.1.4.2016 till realization of final payment to the complainant, subject to transfer of RC and subrogation letter in the name of insurance company by the complainant.
ii. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment which is inclusive of litigation expenses.
The OP no.1 is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:31.5.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
