Haryana

StateCommission

A/983/2015

HDFC GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DULICHAND - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                     

First Appeal No  :    983 of 2015

Date of Institution:    16.11.2015

Date of Decision :     03.03.2016

 

1.     HDFC GIC, through General Manager, registered office, Reman House, HT Parekh 169, Bakhe Reclamation Mumbai-400020.

 

2.     HDFC GIC, through General Manager, Ist Floor, Shop No.110, 117 Om Shubham Towers, Neelam Bata Chowk, NIT, Faridabad.

                                     Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Duli Chand s/o Sh. Dal Chand, Resident of House No.12/4, Village Sikanderpur, Tehsil and District Palwal.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.                                

 

Present:               Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for appellants.

                             Respondent in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated December 11^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.90 of 2013.

2.      Duli Chand-Complainant/respondent, was owner of Ape Diesel 3 wheeler (hereinafter referred to as ‘the vehicle’) bearing registration No.HR-73-2452. The vehicle was insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period August 18^th, 2011 to August 17^th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy Annexure A-4. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.1,48,200/-.

3.      During the intervening night of December 19^th/20^th, 2011, the vehicle was stolen. The complainant informed the Police and the Insurance Company. The Police registered F.I.R. Annexure A-5. The Investigator of the Insurance Company investigated the matter. The Police submitted untraced report and the same was accepted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, vide order dated March 11^th, 2013 (Annexure A-8). The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company did not pay the insured amount. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before District Forum.

4.      The Insurance Company in its reply stated that the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of December 19^th/20^th, 2011 and F.I.R. was lodged on December 28^th, 2011 and the Insurance Company was informed on December 29^th, 2011. Thus, there was delay of eight days in lodging F.I.R. and nine days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance company was not liable to indemnify the complainant.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,48,200/-, that is, IDV of the vehicle, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization; Rs.5,000/- compensation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

6.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal.

7.      The question for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant or not?

8.      Before adverting to the facts at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’). It has been specifically mentioned in the above said circular by IRDA 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.  The operative part of the circular 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.      Indisputably, the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of December 19^th/20^th, 2011. The complainant informed the Police and the Insurance Company. The Police recorded F.I.R. (Annexure A-5). Untraced Report was submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, vide order dated March 11^th, 2013 (Annexure A-8). No cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant.   

10.    In Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176, Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice often adopted by the Insurance Companies of denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants.

11.    For the reasons recorded supra, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 

12.    The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the keys of the three wheeler, transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

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

 

Announced: 03.03.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL