Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1078

SATISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM MS - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 24.10.2016

First Appeal No. 1078/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 236/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006)

In the matter of:

Sh. Satish Kumar

S/o Sh. Kishan Pal

R/o WZ-513-B, BasaiDaraPur

New Delhi-110015                                           .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Cholamandalam M/s General

Insurance Co. Ltd. &Ors.

 

Through:

 

1. The Regional Manager (claims)

Cholamandalam M/s General

Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ist Floor, 4 Pusa Road

New Delhi-110005

 

2. The Branch Manager

Cholamandalam M/s General

Insurance Co. Ltd.

Building No. 9-B

2.  

DLF Phase-III

Gurgaon (Haryana)

 

3. The General Manager (claims)

Cholamandalam M/s General

Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dare House 2^nd Floor 2 No.

N.S.C. Bose Road

Chennai-600001                                        ..........Respondents

                                                                                   

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                              Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                    Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

JUDGMENT

1.           Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate Delhi. Vide impugned orders the complaint filed by the complainant Sh. Satish Kumar was dismissed.Partieshereinafter shall be referred to by their status in the original complaint.
2.         Facts in brief of the complaint are that the vehicle of the make‘Tavera’ was duly insured with M/s Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short the OP) for the period from 12.05.2009 to 11.05.2010. The vehicle was stolen on 14.05.2009 from the residence of the driver Sh. Anil Kumar atJ JColony Shakarpur Delhi 110034 on the night intervening 13.05.2009 and 14.05.2009. Sh. Anil Kumar on waking up from sleep discovered the vehicle missing. As per complainant’s case, he informed the police immediately and made a request for recording of the FIR. Information to the police was given through PCR on 14.05.2009 at about 6:41 am. Next day the driver Sh. Anil Kumar also gavean intimation in writing to the Police Station SaraswatiVihar Delhi. Admittedly the complainant visited the office of the OP on 15.05.2009 when he was advised to inform the OP company in black and white. Complainant admittedly sent a letter dated 19.05.2009 by way of UPC as well as courier. On 26.06.2009 OP wrote a letter to the complainant asking him to pay the short fall of Rs. 3570/- in the installment of premium which admittedly occurred at the end of the OP due to miscalculation. The controversy relating to the said short fall and the subsequent payment has been set at rest and in favour of the complainant by the Ld. District Forum in its orders dated 13.03.2012 which are impugned before this Commission. There is no counter appeal from the side of the OP.
3.         Ld. District Forum adjudicated upon the question whether the complainant had violated any condition of the insurance policy. To make the things very clear, the alleged violation related to the delay in giving intimation of the theft to the police. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned here that the intimation to the OP on the next day of the theft is not in dispute. Contention of the OP is that the complainant lodged an FIR relating to the theft of the vehicle with the police station only on 12.02.2010. Ld. District Forum observed that the factum of theft came to the knowledge of the complainant (through driver) on 14.05.2009. FIR was lodged on 12.02.2010. Relevant para of the finding of the Ld. District Forum is reproduced below:

“In the present case, the delay in lodging the FIR is not only of few days. The delay is of nine months. Theft came to the knowledge on 14.05.2009. The FIR was lodged on 12.02.2010. Further, the facts as mentioned in the report to the police and as pleaded in the complaint for delay in lodging the FIR, are altogether contradictory. The complainant cannot take benefit of such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR. If the police would have been informed about the theft of the vehicle immediately on the happening of the incident then the police could have made efforts to trace it out. By doing that, the complainant has caused harm to his claim for reimbursement as alleged by the insurance company. He violated the condition of the insurance cover note. By repudiating the claim, the insurance company in the given situation of delay in lodging the FIR, has not caused any deficiency in service. The complainant has got no merit. The same is rejected.”

 

4.         Before proceedings further, it may be mentioned here that the complainant moved a Revision Petition dated 28.08.2012 for taking on record the PCR report and the copy of the application dated 15.05.2009 allegedly filed by the driver Sh. Anil Kumar in the Police Station SaraswatiVihar Delhi. The same was dismissed on the grounds that the Ld. District Forum did not enjoy the power of ‘Review’.
5.         In his present appeal the complainant submitted that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the fact that he had given an information to the PCR immediately after discovery of the factum of theft. Complainant referred to para 6 of his complaint. Appellant/complainant also relied upon his application dated 15.05.2009 written to the police. In reply to the corresponding paras of the appeal, (para 39 and 40) OP simply denied the contents of the paras.
6.         OP wants this commission to ask the complainant to strictly prove his documents. In other words, both the documents namely PCR record dated 14.05.2009 and the application dated 15.05.2009 made to the police were not specifically denied. It is not the case of the OP that both these documents are false and fabricated. I have perused the PCR record dated 14.05.2009 which shows that the intimation has been given to the police on 14.05.2009 at 6:41:20. There is no material to disbelieve the genuineness of the PCR record in question.
7.         Now coming to the application dated 15.05.2009 allegedly written by the driver Sh. Anil Kumar to the Police Station SaraswatiVihar Delhi, it may be mentioned here that the same bears the stamp of police station alongwith signatures in token of the same having been received. In the absence of any challenge to these documents, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant had given the intimation of the factum of the theft of the vehicle to the police immediately after discovering the same. Repudiation of the claim on this ground, therefore, was not justified. Appeal is hence allowed. Orders dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum are set aside. Complaint is allowed to the extent that the OP shall pay to the complainant as under:

1.     to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,35,000/- i.e. Insured Declared Value of the vehicle w.e.f. alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization i.e. 24.09.2009.

 

2.      to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant.

 

3.      to pay litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/-.

The abovesaid amount shall be paid to the complainant by the OP within a period of 30 days from today failing which interest @ 24% p.a. shall be leviable after the expiry of the period of 30 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

8.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
9.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)