Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 613.
Instituted on : 27.10.2017.
Decided on : 28.02.2019.
Asha Nand, age 49 years, son of Sh. Rajpal, Resident of H.No. 132, VPO Chimni, District Jhajjar, now resident of H.No. 605/34 Gali No. 5, Hari Singh Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Cholamandlam MS, General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, “Dare House” No. 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai- 600001, India through its Regional Manager.
2. Cholamandlam MS, General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-334, Basement, Mugal Canal Market, karnal-132001 through its Divisional Manager.
3. Cholamandlam MS, General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Anand Plaza, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR.RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. M.K. Munjal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has obtained an insurance policy of his vehicle i.e. car i-20 from the opposite parties vide policy No. 3362/01213255/000/00, policy type – Package Pvt. Car Policy on dated 30.06.2016. The period of said insurance was from 30.06.2016 to 29.06.2017 midnight. The complainant had paid the insurance premium amount of Rs.19500.89/- and the value of the vehicle was later on stolen assessed/declared as Rs.7,25,000/-. That in the intervening night on 08.08.2016, the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen in front of his resident. An FIR No. 282 dated 09.08.2016 under Section 79 of IPC with Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak was registered. Police could not found the vehicle and non-traceable report/final report was given by the police on 28.10.2016. The complainant lodged his claim with the OPs within time and complete in all respects, but the same was repudiated by the OPs and intimation was sent to the complainant through e-mail on 28.06.2017 without giving any specific reasons. That a legal notice dated 22.08.2017 sent to OPs No. 1 and 2, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties of not paying the claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount Rs.7,25,000/- for the stolen vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its theft till its realization under the said insurance policy and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply submitted that the vehicle in question was allegedly stolen on 08.08.2016, whereas intimation regarding the same has been given to the OPs on 24.09.2016 after a unexplained delay by 46 days which is violation of the terms and conditions. It is further submitted that the contents regarding the intimation being given by the complainant to the police authorities on telephone no.100, as regard to the theft of the vehicle is a matter of record. That the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions and no wrong has been done with the complainant. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.05.2018. Ld. Counsel for OPs has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 06.09.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that there is delay of 46 days in giving intimation to the OPs. Perusal of documents shows that vehicle was stolen on 08.08.2016 and FIR was got registered on 09.08.2016. Hence there is no delay on the part of complainant in giving intimation to the police. Regarding the delayed intimation to the opposite party, we have placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 20.09.2018 decided by Hon’ble Justice Nawab Singh titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 decided by Hon’ble Judicial Member Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is observed that the act of opposite party of repudiating the claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.725000/- after deduction of the excess clause of Rs.1500/- i.e. to pay Rs.723500/-(Rupees seven lac twenty three thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.10.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The amount so awarded shall be paid to the financer within one month from the date of decision for disbursement of loan amount taken by the complainant. However, after disbursement of the loan amount, the remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
