CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/14/22
Instituted on : 09.01.2014
Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through : Manager, Shop No.3, 2nd Floor,
Maruti Business Park, Near Dhuppad Petrol Pump,
Raipur (C.G.) … Appellant
Vs.
Gurvinder Singh, S/o Sada Singh,
R/o : Udaya Society, Tatibandh,
Raipur (C.G.) .… Respondent
PRESENT :
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR,MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri N.K. Thakur , for appellant.
Shri Atanu Lahiri, for respondent.
ORDER
DATED : 04/02/2015
PER :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.23/2012. By the impugned order, the complaint of the respondent (complainant) has been allowed and the appellant (O.P.) has been directed to pay within a period of one month a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 27.01.2012 till realisation. The District Forum has also directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards advocate fees and cost of litigation.
2. As per allegations made in the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) he was the owner of the vehicle truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04-JA-3055, which was insured with the appellant (O.P.) under insurance policy No.2010-V-0798640-P.C.V. for the period from 16.06.2010 to 15.06.2011. Incident of theft was occurred on 01.07.2010 within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Malegaon and on the date of occurrence of theft, the insurance policy of the vehicle in question was in force. It was also averred that the incident was reported to the concerned Police Station and on receiving the same, a crime was registered and also the incident of theft was intimated to the appellant (O.P.) as well as to the financer of the vehicle. It was also averred that all the relevant documents were given to the appellant (O.P.) but the appellant (O.P.) did not settle the claim of the respondent (complainant) and hence committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the appellant (O.P.) and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.) appeared before the District Forum and filed written statement. The appellant (O.P.) denied all the allegations as made in the complaint by the respondents and denied all the contents which are against the appellant (O.P.). Fact about the insurance of the vehicle is not disputed but the same was done subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the policy. It was denied that any intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given immediately but it was belated. It was pleaded by the appellant (O.P.) that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given after 28 days from the date of alleged incident and First Information Report was also not lodged immediately and intimation regarding this was given to the R.T.O. after 29 days from the date of alleged incident and thus the respondent (complainant) committed breach of policy conditions, hence the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get compensation as mentioned in the complaint. The complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant) as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
5. The respondent (complainant) filed documents. Annexure -1 is photocopy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-JA-3055, Annexure 2 is photocopy Certificate of Insurance Cum Policy Schedule issued by the appellant (O.P.) in favour of the respondent (complainant), Annexure 3 is First Information Report, Annexure – 4 is final report, Annexure 5 is pa nchnama, Annexure 6 is intimation given to the R.T.O. regarding the incident of theft, Annexure 7 is copy of national permit for the goods vehicle, Annexure 8 is letter dated 29.07.2-10 sent by the respondent (complainant) to the Manager, Magma Leasing Ltd., Annexure 9 is letter dated 13.07.2011 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), final report dated 30.11.2011, firyaddated 09.07.2010, Arrest / Court Surrender Form, statements of various persons.
6. The appellant (O.P.) has also filed documents. Document Annexure D-1 is Insurance Claim Form, Annexure D-2 is intimation given to the R.T.O. regarding the incident of theft, Annexure D-3 is letter dated 10.02.2012 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure D-4 is letter dated 13.07.2011 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure D-5 is letter dated 11.11.2010 sent by Cartel Surveyors & Investigators to the respondent (complainant), Annexure D-6 is letter dated 25.08.2011 sent by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.), Annexure D-7 is Policy with wordings.
7. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum by allowing the complaint of the respondent (complainant) is perverse and is not sustainable in law. The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate that the facts brought on record and has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of the defining the "deficiency in service" by overlooking the facts of the case. There is nothing on record that the incident of theft was reported to the appellant (O.P.) in time and it is also not on record that the same was informed to the concerned Police Station and R.T.O. immediately. The District Forum has also observed that the intimation was given after 28 days from the date of alleged incident. Therefore, the finding of the District Forum, is arbitrary and cannot be accepted in eye of law, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1362 of 2011 Rang Lal (Deceased) through his legal representatives vs. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another decided on 01.09.2011; Budha Ganesh vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Office, 2014 (1) CPR 370 (NC); Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through General Manager vs. Mahender Jat, I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC); Revision Petition No.709 of 2012 – Dharam Kumar Agrawal vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others decided on 05.10.2012 and Revision Petition No.2982 of 2012 – Shri Kuldeep Singh vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager decided on 18.01.2013.
8. Shri Atanu Lahiri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum, and submitted that it is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission and the appeal of the appellant (O.P.) is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. Hon'ble National Commission in Rang Lal (Deceased) through his legal representatives vs. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another (Revision Petition No.1362 of 2011) decided on 01.09.2011, in paragraph No.5 has observed as under :-
"5. In the above-mentioned case, relied upon by the State Commission, this Commission had observed inter alia as under :
In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the insurance company about the theft for a period of nine days, which could be fatal to the investigation. The delay in lodging the FIR after two days of the coming to know of the theft and nine days to the insurance company, can be fatal, as in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabaadi (scrap dealer)."
11. In Budha Ganesh vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Office (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"7. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity which would justify our interference with the impugned order under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This meritless revision petition, therefore, must be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."
12. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through General Manager vs. Mahender Jat (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"16. The law on this matter is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 as also the judgment in the matter of Dharambir vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in RP No.1542 of 2012 decided on 10.10.2013 and in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009.
17. We have considered the rival contentions. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance policy, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the accident. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. It was further held that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured despite the fact that he has not complied with the terms of the policy. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as under :-
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 10.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajinder Singh Pawar, but this explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an edeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
13. In Kulwant Singh vs. The Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2015 (1) CLT 106, Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "in terms of policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. It is further observed that such a delay can be fatal as within three days the vehicle could have been driven long distance even across the border of the country or could have been dismantled and sold to the scrap dealer. Thus, by delaying the information of theft to the police, the petitioner insured had acted against the interest of the insurer and this violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused which justifies the repudiation of claim by the respondent Insurance Company."
14. In the instant case the incident took place on 01.07.2010 and First Information Report was lodged before the concerned Police Station on 09.07.2010 i.e. after near about 8 days of the incident and the matter was reported to the appellant (O.P.) after 28 days of the incident and even intimation regarding the incident was given to the R.T.O. after 29 days from the date of the alleged incident. The respondent (complainant) has not given any plausible and reliable explanation for delayed intimation . Due to delayed intimation to the appellant (O.P.), the appellant (O.P.) was deprived of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged incident of theft.
15. In the instant case, the First Information Report was lodged belated and intimation regarding the incident was also given to the appellant (O.P.) at a belated stage, therefore we find that the respondent (complainant) has violated the term of the insurance policy, which is fundamental breach of policy, therefore, the appellant (O.P.) has a right to repudiate the claim of the respondent (complainant) and the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant).
16. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, suffers from infirmity, irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.
17. Hence, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) and set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) also stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar)
President Member Member
/02/2015 /02/2015 /02/2015
