STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      140 of 2015

Date of Institution:      10.02.2015

Date of Decision :       21.05.2015

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020 through its Branch Manager/Principal Office.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Gurudyal Antil s/o Sh. Umed Singh, Resident of 1280, VPO Murthal, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated December 17^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Sonepat. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……we hereby direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to make the payment of 75% of the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.16,72,000/- on non-standard basis alongwith 09% interest from the date of theft till realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and further to pay Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) under the head of litigation expenses. However, it is directed to the complainant to complete the formalities and to get transfer the RC of the vehicle in the name of the respondents No.1 and 2.”

2.      Gurudyal Antil-complainant (respondent herein) got his truck, bearing Registration No. HR-69A-5612, of EIVA make, insured with the Insurance Company, from March 10^th, 2008 to March 9^th, 2009, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-4). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.16,72,000/-.  During the intervening night of June 14^th//15^th,, 2008, the vehicle was stolen in the area of North Delhi. Naresh-driver of the vehicle informed the Police. F.I.R. No.300 (Exhibit C-5) was lodged in Police Station, Timarpur on June 15^th, 2008. The complainant gave intimation to the Insurance Company. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-7) was submitted by the Police which was accepted by ASJ-03/North/Delhi, vide order dated May 25^th, 2009.

3.      The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the same vide letter dated March 7^th, 2014 (Exhibit C-8) stating therein that the theft took place on June 15^th, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  and the Insurance Company was informed on September 4^th, 2008.  So, as per condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

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

5.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the ground taken in the repudiation letter.

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.      It would be apt to mention here that after passing of the order by the District Forum, the Insurance Company wrote a letter to the District Transport Officer, Sonipat, Haryana (Annexure A-1) to transfer the ownership of vehicle No.HR-69-A-5612 owned by Gurdayal-complainant, in its name. Not only that the Insurance Company also issued a cheque No.406881 dated February 2^nd, 2015 for Rs.16,63,640/- in favour of the complainant, as mentioned in Annexure A-2 but the same was withheld by the Insurance Company.

8.      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 giving intimation to the Insurance Company?

 9.     The answer to the question posed in negative in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), wherein it was held as under:-

          “12.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant 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.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.” 

10.    In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), referring to the principle laid down in Nitin Khandelwal’s case (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

11.    The case in hand is fully covered by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nitin Khandelwal’s and Amalendu Sahoo’s cases (Supra).  Indisputably, in the instant case the truck of the complainant was insured for Rs.16,72,000/- and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the truck on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% which the District Forum has awarded to the complainant vide impugned order.

12.    In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby 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