Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/19/2019

Rohit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjay Sheoran

13 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

         

                                                         R. B. T. No.       19 of 26.8.2019

Complaint Case No. 10 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 11.01.2019

                                                          Date of Decision:             13.11.2024.

 

Rohit son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No. 53/6, Wart No. 11, Kanhi Ram Eye Hospital, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                                                                       

                                      Versus

1.       Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. And Head Office, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Branch Manager.

2.       Cholamandlam Investment/Insurance Company, MDR 124, Charkhi Dadri 127306.

                                                                             …...Opposite Parties.

 

                    COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Rajinder Verma, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

OP No. 2 given up.

 

ORDER

                   The case of the complainants in brief, is that the complainant was registered owner of a Motor Cycle bearing No.HR-16P-5471 and the same was insured with OPs from 18.12.2015 to 17.12.2016 vide policy No. 3361/00393987/000/00 for Rs.43,000/-.  It is averred that Amit brother of the complainant on 19.7.2016 went to Rohtak and parked the motor cycle near police post, Sunaria Jail, Rohtak at about 9.40 am, but the motor Cycle was stolen by someone from there at about 10.30 am and FIR No.244 dated 19.7.2016 under Section 379 IPC was got registered with the police station, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak and also informed the OPs about the theft.  It is further averred that the untraced report was filed by the police on 3.4.2018 in the court of ld. JMIC, Rohtak.  It is further averred that the complainant submitted the claim with the OPs and completed all formalities for insurance claim, but the claim was not settled by the OPs.  It is further averred that non-payment of claim by the OPs is illegal, against the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Ld. counsel for the complainant vide his statement dated 4.3.2024 has given up OP No. 2 being unnecessary party.

3.                On appearance, the OP No. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that complainant has informed the OP on 24.8.2016 regarding theft of motor cycle and they deputed fact finding investigator for investigations, who submitted his report dated 26.11.2016.  It is further averred that the investigator reported that the theft was occurred on 19.7.2016, whereas the intimation regarding theft was given to the company on 24.8.2016 i.e. after 36 days delay.  It is further averred that the complainant has submitted the original keys to the company.  It is further averred that the intimation was given to the OP on 24.8.2016 after a delay of 36 days, so there is violation of terms & conditions No. 1 & 9 of the insurance policy.  It is further averred that a letter was sent to the complainant on 2.9.2016 for clarifications regarding delay in intimation to the company, but he failed to do so and as such the claim of complainant was repudiated by the OP company vide letter dated 17.2.2017 on the grounds of violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                The complainant and the OP in support of their respective averments tendered documentary evidence alongwith their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of the relevant record is given in this order.   

5.                 We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

6.                The sole contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the incident had taken place on 19.7.2016 and the answering OPs was informed on 24.8.2016 i.e. after 36 days and there is no reason as to why such a long time was taken by the complainant and as such repudiation of claim is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any compensation on any count.  There is no dispute regarding issuance of policy by the OP.  It is also admitted fact that FIR No. 244 dated 19.7.2016 Annexure C1 was lodged in P.S. Shivaji Colony, Rohtak. In our view, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the OPs has no merit, because a person who had lost his vehicle which was being used by him would not go immediately to Insurance Company to claim the compensation.  At the first instance, he himself would make efforts to search the vehicle and filing of claim with the Insurance Company is the last option.  Moreover, he had reported the matter to the police on the same day.  So, question of delay regarding intimation to the insurance company did not disentitle the complainant to get benefit of insurance.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon Ashok Kumar Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 31.7.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the Award of District Commission and of State Commission allowing inter-alia condonation of delay in intimation to insurance company.

7.                In our view, the rejection of claims purely on procedural grounds in a mechanical fashion shall result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigations.  What is the spirit of Insurance Policy, should be kept in mind by the officials dealing with genuine claims of the sufferers and same should not be rejected on methodological grounds in a mechanical manner. The tendency of Insurance Company in rejecting genuine claims is the reason of increasing litigation between the insurers and insured.  Learned Counsel for complainant has contended that mere plea that matter lately informed would not defeat the claim. It is also pertinent to mention here that circular No. IR&A/HLTH/HISC/CIR/216/09/ 2011 at 20.09.2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority reveals that condition of intimation to the insurer within specified manner of days should not prevent settlement of genuine claims.  The insurers were also advised to incorporate additional wordings in the policy documents suitably enunciating insurers stand to condone delay on merit for delayed claims.  It is very clear from above circular that Insurance Company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation etc.

8.                In our view, in case of theft primary requirement is to lodge the FIR immediately and intimation to the insurance company is secondary.  Keeping in view that in the event after registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovers and returns the vehicle to the insured, there would not be any need to inform the insurance company and to file claim with them.  In the present case the theft took place on 19.7.2016 and FIR was lodged on the same day.  Subsequently, “Untraced Report” was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak on 3.4.2018.  We consider it appropriate even if the claim is filed with the insurance company, even after acceptance of the “Untraced Report” by the competent court.  In the present case delay in intimation to the insurance company is 36 days, which may be considered reasonable and justified, as the complainant promptly lodged the FIR on the day of theft itself.

9.                Now, the question arises whether the value of the stolen vehicle in question is to be taken as insured value or market value.  The contractual value of the vehicle in question for which the vehicle was insured is payable as the OP had charged the premium on that amount.  So, the OP cannot be allowed to deduct the depreciation amount. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OP No. 1 is directed:-

i)        To pay the insured amount i.e. Rs.43,000/- (Forty three thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 11.1.2019 till its final realization.

2.  

iii.      To pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as litigation charges.

          The OP No. 1 shall make the compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Non compliance of this order on the part of OP No. 1 will lead to action in terms of Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  The order be promptly uploaded on the website. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.