KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 112/2011
JUDGMENT DATED : 21.02.12
PRESENT:
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Finance Tower, Kaloor, Kochi : APPELLANT
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs
Deepa Vimal, 39/3116, Maliackal House, : RESPONDENT
Valanjambalam, Kochi.
(By Adv. K.A. Safeer)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Challenging the sustainability of the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No.245/2008 the opposite party preferred this appeal. The Forum below accepting the case of the complainant directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards indemnification of loss along with interest @ 6% from the date of order till realization.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the Lower Forum is not justified in passing the order on the ground that there is an inordinate delay of 2 months and 22 days regarding the intimation of the accident causing breach of policy condition which is fatal in this case. The counsel contended that the Forum below had been taken away by the wrong reasoning that the delay in informing the insurance company about the accident was due to the delay in getting back the vehicle and also had given much gravity to the accident which resulted in the death of 3 persons. The counsel also highlighted the condition No.1 of the policy. (Ext. B4) and the mandatory direction to the insured “notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require”. It is his case that inordinate delay is a breach of policy condition and defeated the rights of the appellant causing inability to the proper timely investigation and the assessment of the loss/damage. Our attention was drawn to the decision by the National Commission in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Yodeva Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. IV (2006 CPJ 210 (NC) wherein the late intimation of 3 ½ months to the insurer to inform the theft which deprived the insurer to appoint a surveyor to carry out the investigation of loss. In this case the appellant was deprived of carrying out the investigation of accident and could not assess the actual loss incurred to the vehicle. The appellant justified the repudiation of the claim.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted before us that the wife of the respondent was the owner of the Innova car and had an insurance policy with the appellant. The policy amount was also admitted by the appellant. The accident was immediately reported to the police and registered FIR (Ext. A2) which is also produced by the respondent/complainant. He also submitted that the accident was reported to the accident section and to the person named Shri. Shan of the appellant’s office. To substantiate the case of the respondent, the Counsel contended that the car was under police custody until the release by the court order. Subsequently accident was intimated to the insurance company which in turn repudiated the claim. The total sum insured was for Rs.7,75,181/- and the lower Forum awarded only Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. The only question that is to be decided by us in this appeal is as to whether in a case of violation of condition of policy ie delay in intimation of accident; the appellant /insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant has issued the insurance policy nor is it in dispute that the accident took place during the subsistence of the policy. The policy was therefore valid on the date of accident.
6. We have to state here the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) that in a case of violation of condition of policy the claim is to be settled on a non- standard basis. It is clear that 75 % claim is admissible wherein condition of policy was breached. Applying the principle laid down in the above said decision we are of the view that the repudiation of claim on the ground of delay in intimation under condition of policy is not sustainable.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent/complainant is entitled to 75% of the claim amount or Rs.5,00,000/- with 6% interest, whichever is less, as ordered by the lower Forum.
The order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the award amount will carry 9% interest till realization.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Da
