Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 178.
Instituted on : 14.05.2014.
Decided on : 21.09.2016.
Vikas son of Sh. Tejpal r/o village Kherdi Tehsil Kalanaur District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor Plot No.6 Pusa Road near Metro Pillar No.81 New Delhi-110005 through its Incharge.
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.V.K.Chugh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of a tractor which was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.9298333 for the period 04.07.2013 to 03.07.2014 and sum insured was Rs.396150/-. It is averred that the said vehicle was stolen by someone in the area of P.S.Badshahpur District Gurgaon and FIR No.249 date 07.07.2013 was registered u/s 380 IPC, District Gurgaon. It is averred that complainant intimated the opposite parties within time and lodged his claim with the opposite parties and submitted all the required documents and completed all the formalities as required by the opposite parties. It is averred that till date the opposite parties have not disbursed the claim of the complainant despite his repeated requests and visits. It is averred that a legal notice dated 03.02.2014 was also sent to the opposite parties but till date nothing has been paid to the complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount of vehicle Rs.396150/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that it is admitted that the complainant had insured the vehicle vide policy no.3380/00598164/000/00 for the period 04.07.2013 to 03.07.2014 for the IDV Rs.396150/-. It is averred that the theft of vehicle in question has allegedly taken place on 06.07.2013 and the intimation was given to the answering opposite party on 23.07.2013 i.e. after the delay of 18 days. It is averred that by making the delayed intimation, the complainant has curtailed the lawful right of the answering opposite party to check the authenticity of the alleged theft and to trace the vehicle in question. It is averred that the Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the alleged loss has occurred with the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum at Gurgaon and the policy in question has been purchased from New Delhi, giving no cause in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party to file the present complaint at Rohtak. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. As per policy Schedule Ex.C2, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.396150/-. After the theft complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R5 had repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim has been reported belatedly.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that it is observed that as per policy Ex.C2/R1 the vehicle was insured through the intermediary Dahiya Automobiles, Rohtak and the policy was issued at Rohtak. Hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is also observed that the theft had taken place on 06.07.2013 and the FIR was lodged on 07.07.2013. Hence there was no delay in lodging the FIR. Regarding the delayed intimation to the opposite party reliance has been placed upon the law laid down in III(2008) CPJ 459 titled Ridhi Gupta Vs. NIC whereby Hon’ble Delhi State Commission , New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Theft-Information to police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not”, as per 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine, as per 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram Hon’ble State Commission has also held that: “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane-The delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case” and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is illegal and the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle which as per policy document Ex.R1 is Rs.396150/-.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the insured value of vehicle i.e. Rs.396150/-(Rupees three lac ninety six thousand one hundred fifty only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.05.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant (e.g. Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit by owner to the opposite parties) failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. 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:
21.09.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
