STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      217 of 2015

Date of Institution:      09.03.2015

Date of Decision :       21.05.2015

1.     Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Panipat.

2.     Divisional Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Dealer, Divisional Office, SCO No.14, Ist Floor, HSIIDC, G.T. Road,, Karnal.

3.     Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Karnal, Durga Bhawani Temple, G.T. Road, Karnal, near Bus Stand, Karnal.

         Appellants No.1 to 3 now represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office at SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Dharamender Singh s/o Sh. Sahib Singh, Resident of Village Khozkipur, Sub Tehsil Bapoli, District Panipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri J.S. Saneta, Advocate for respondent. 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed is directed against the order dated January 20^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panipat, whereby complaint filed by Dharamender Singh-complainant (respondent herein) was allowed. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced herein below:-

“……we hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.5,34,850/- as insured amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order.”

2.      The respondent-complainant got his car bearing Registration No. HR-60D-3501, of Volkswagen make, insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite parties, from October 19^th, 2011 to October 18^th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-8/R-1). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the car was Rs.5,34,850/-.  During the intervening night of September 12^th/13^th, 2012, the car was stolen in the area of Village Khojkipur, District Panipat. He immediately informed the Police upon which F.I.R. No.66 (Exhibit C-5) was lodged in Police Station, Bapoli on September 17^th, 2012. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-7) was submitted by the Police which was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat.

3.      The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount.

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply.  It was stated that the theft took place during the intervening night of September 12^th/13^th, 2012 whereas the FIR was lodged after four days on September 17^th, 2012 and the Insurance Company was informed on September 20^th, 2012.

6.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.      The issue for consideration is as to whether or not the Insurance Company was justified in denying complainant’s claim on the ground of delay in lodging FIR and giving intimation to the Insurance Company?

8.      Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’) issued circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011, which reads as under:-

“The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”

9.      In the above said circular it has been specifically mentioned that 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 of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine. 

10.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), has held that in case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.”

11.    It is abundantly proved that the car of the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company and it was stolen on the intervening night of September 12^th/13^th, 2012. He immediately informed the Police but the Police registered the F.I.R. on September 17^th, 2012. He filed an affidavit (Exhibit C-9) before the Police that he had informed the Police about the theft of his car on September 13^th, 2012 but the Police did not register the FIR immediately for the reasons best known to them. The said affidavit bears the seal of Police Station Bapoli, District Panipat.  Untraced Report (Exhibit C-7) was also submitted by the Police. There is nothing on the record to show that the car of the complainant was not stolen. So, repudiation of genuine claim of the complainant on the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR and intimation to the Insurance Company was not justified. 12.      In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL