1.M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D,Chandigarh.

2.M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. and Head Office, A-25/27,Asif Ali Road,New Delhi-110002.

  ……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Hari Shankar s/o Lala Ram, R/o #59, Babu Dham Colony, Phase-I, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“The Opposite Parties are accordingly directed to make payment to the Complainant for the loss on non standard basis. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for unnecessary delaying the payment of claim. Opposite Parties will also pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay further interest @ 9% p.a. on the decreed amount from the date of this order, till it is paid, besides the cost of litigation”. 

2.           Delhi. It was further stated that the said driver parked the vehicle, in question, in a street, in front of Nice Cargo Carrier K.No. 897, Shop No.9, Metro Pillar No.490, and slept therein (vehicle). At 3.00 a.m., when the driver went to attend the call of nature, he concealed the keys, inside the vehicle, to ensure its safety, but when he returned, he found the same (vehicle) missing from the spot. On being informed, the complainant reached Delhi, and lodged information of theft, in respect of the said vehicle, vide F.I.R. No.55 dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure C-2), with 

3.            

4.           

5.           6.            

7.           

8.            

9.           

10.         However, the Counsel for the appellants, submitted that though the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, in respect of the vehicle, in question, were supplied to the complainant, yet, the Opposite Parties were not in possession of any documentary evidence, with regard to supply of the same. The Opposite Parties could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, with regard to the supply of terms and conditions of the Policy, to the complainant, but they failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the version set up by the complainant, in paragraph number 8 of the complaint, duly supported by his affidavit, and further fortified, from Annexure C-6 copy of the letter dated 07.01.2013, sent to him, by the Opposite Parties, alongwith the terms and conditions of the Policy, when asked for, under the RTI Act, 2005, is held to be correct. It is, therefore,

11.        In M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.I(2000)CPJ1 (SC), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is the fundamental principle of Insurance Law, that utmost good faith, must be observed by the contracting parties, and good faith forbids either party, from non-disclosure of the facts, which the parties knew. The insured has a duty to disclose all the facts, and similarly it was the duty of the Insurance Company, and its agents, to disclose all the material facts, in its knowledge, since obligation of good faith applies to both equally. It was, thus, the duty of the Insurance Company/Opposite Parties to disclose all the facts and circumstances, relating to the insurance cover, to the complainant. It was also required of them, to apprise the complainant, of the benefits of the insurance, exclusion clauses, contained therein, and the warranties referred to, in the same. It was, under these circumstances, the utmost duty of the insurer to supply the Insurance Policy and the terms and conditions thereof, to the insured, so as to enable him, to go through the same, and understand the Clauses contained therein. However, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties, as stated above, failed to prove that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were supplied to the complainant, at the time of insurance of the vehicle or before the theft thereof. In t was observed that being aware of the existence of the Policy, is one thing, and being aware of the contents and meaning of the Clauses of the Policy, is another. 

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.        

16.        

Pronounced.

October 31, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg