Delhi

North East

CC/29/2021

Naim Ahmed - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 29/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

		Shri Naim Ahmed S/o Shri Ansar Ahmed, R/o T-252, St. No. 4, Gautampuri, Garhi Mendu, North East, Delhi-110053		Complainant
		Versus
		Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Flat No. (2H, 2I, 2V & 2Q) 2nd Floor, DCM Building, Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110001   Also At:- Head Office: Dara House, 2nd Floor, No.02, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001, India		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		17.02.21 08.05.23 19.09.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL 5C N 0793. The Complainant purchased a policy from Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd (Opposite Party) bearing no. 3362/01646037/000/00 valid from 26.12.18 to 25.12.19. The Complainant stated that in month of July, 2019 his car got stolen and he lodged an e-FIR having no. 024163/2019 dated 10.07.19 at District Crime Branch P S E-Police Station (Seelampur, North-East). Thereafter, head constable Rajesh Kumar No.958/NE Police Station Seelampur started investigation in the case. The Complainant stated that he intimated the Opposite Party about theft within 2 days of theft. The Complainant stated that after two days official of Opposite Party reached the spot from vehicle got stolen and Complainant supplied all the requisite documents which were asked by official of Opposite Party for claim of the insured amount of said vehicle but they did not give any receiving in this regard. The Complainant visited office of Opposite Party after 2-3 weeks but Opposite Party officials seek more time. The Complainant visited office of Opposite Party again but officials of Opposite Party did not give any satisfactory reply and senior official told him that his claim has been rejected but did not supply the rejection letter. The Complainant also sent legal notice dated 22.12.20 to Opposite Party and same is received by Opposite Party on 26.12.20 despite this Opposite Party did not reply to this notice nor did they pass the claim. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for the insurance amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost.  

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Upon service, the Opposite Party entered the appearance through their counsel and filed written statement. The Opposite Party, while admitting the subject policy insuring the vehicle in question in the name of Complainant, contended that the policy was subject to terms and conditions. Their contention is that there has been no deficiency on their part because the Complainant’s claim was rejected on account of violation of policy terms and conditions committed by the Complainant. Their contention is that the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party Company after a delay of 15 days and on account of such inordinate delay, the Opposite Party was deprived of the legitimate right of conducting inquiry into the alleged theft. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that the condition no.1 of the policy has been violated by the Complainant by not intimating the loss timely, hence, the claim was rightly rejected by them and the complaint needs to be dismissed. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party that as per their investigation, the subject vehicle was financed by the AU Small Finance Bank and not Bank of Baroda as stated by the Complainant and as such the AU Small Finance Bank is the necessary party to the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Sujeet Kumar Sahu, Deputy Manager Legal of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.  
7. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle which was duly insured by the Opposite party for the insured value of Rs. 2,70,000/-. It is alleged that the said vehicle was stolen in month of July, 2019 and the Complainant informed the police and lodged an e-FIR bearing no. 024163/2019 dated 10.07.19 and the Complainant also informed to have intimated the Opposite Party about theft within 2 days of theft. The Complainant also stated that after two days official of Opposite Party reached the spot from vehicle got stolen and Complainant supplied all the requisite documents which were asked by official of Opposite Party for claim of the insured amount of said vehicle but they did not give any receiving in this regard. The Complainant alleges that in spite of providing all the documents and information related to the incident, the Opposite Party has not paid his claim, hence, committed deficiency of service. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party Company after a delay of 15 days and on account of such inordinate delay, the Opposite Party was deprived of the legitimate right of conducting inquiry into the alleged theft. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that the condition no.1 of the policy has been violated by the Complainant by not intimating the loss timely, hence, the claim was rightly rejected by them and the complaint needs to be dismissed.
8. On perusal of the record including the pleadings of the parties, it is revealed that it is not in dispute that the Complainant had taken an insurance policy for the vehicle in question nor is it in dispute that the theft took place during subsistence of the policy which was valid on the date of the incident.
9. It is also evident from the record that the Complainant had informed the police about the incident timely i.e. on 10.07.20 and got the FIR registered to that effect.  The Opposite Party has not recorded any objection on this point. It is further observed that the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 03.12.2019 on the ground of delay in intimation of 15 days. It has been contended by the Opposite Party that the condition no.1 of the policy has been violated by the Complainant by not intimating the loss timely, hence the claim was rejected.
10. The perusal of the record also shows that police after due investigation had filed untrace report before the Court of law as the vehicle could not be traced. The record also shows that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim was not genuine. The claim has been repudiated on account of breach of condition no.1 which provides for delayed intimation.
11.  It is relevant to mention that the three Judge Bench in case of Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another reported in 2020 (11) SCC 612 in similar case as on hand has held as below;

“20. We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.”

12. The position was reaffirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Jaina Construction Company vs. Oriental Insurance Company limited and Another 2022 SCC Online SC 175, by holding as under:-

“ 9. … When the Complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft.”

13. In the present case, when the insured has lodged an FIR without delay after the theft of the vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have issued a final report as untraced report, then, insurance company cannot refuse to pay the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft.
14.  In view of above rulings and the discussion, we are of the considered opinion that opposite party has been deficient in services by wrongly repudiating Complainant’s valid claim under the effective Policy in force at the time of incident.
15. Thus, we hold that Opposite Party insurance company is guilty of deficiency of services, and direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,70,000/-. (Rs. Two Lakhs, Seventy Thousand only), the insured amount under the policy along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with 9 % p.a. interest from the date of this order till its recovery.
16. Order announced on 19.09.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President