Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/555

CHOLAMANDALAM MS.GEN.INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARVINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing: 10.01.2019

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:28.01.2019

 

 

First Appeal No. 555/2012

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Cholamandalam

M/s General Insurance Co. Ltd.

9^th floor, Kanchan Junga Building

New Delhi-110001

 

Through:

Cholamandalam

M/s General Insurance Co. Ltd.

1^st floor, 6, Pusa Road,

Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110005                                                                    ....Appellant

 

                            

VERSUS

 

Mr. Harvinder Singh

97, Sector-I,

Old Mahavir Nagar,

Tilak Nagar,

New Delhi-110018….Respondent

 

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                   Yes

 

Present:       Sh. L.R. Goyal, Counsel for the appellant

                   Sh. J.K. Bhardwaj, Counsel for the respondents

 

          ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.           Aggrieved by the orders dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, District New Delhi in CC-963/2008 in the matter of Harvinder Singh versus Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Co. Ltd., holding the action of the Insurer as arbitrary and directing them to settle the claim preferred by the appellant as a consequence of the theft of the car, on non standard basis immediately, the said the Insurance Co., have filed an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act), for short appellant, against Sh. Harvinder Singh, resident of New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as respondent, alleging that the order impugned herein, has been passed ignoring the vital point that the claim is not payable owing to the delay done by the respondent/complainant in intimating the theft of the car and praying for setting aside the order and consequently for dismissal of the complaint.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.
3.           The respondent/complainant had obtained a policy no. MPC-0029045-000-00 from the insurer in respect of his car number DL4CAG7481 for a period of one year from 23.04.2007 to 22.04.2008 on the premium of Rs. 11,677/-. One of the conditions contained in the policy is as under:

 

“…in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”

 

Secondly as per condition number 1 intimation with respect to loss of vehicle, if any, has to be immediately reported to the insurer. The said condition is indicated below:

 

          Condition No-1 Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require… Notice shall also be given writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operation with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

 

Condition No: 9 regarding observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsement vital for examining and scrutinizing the claim is indicated below:

         

Condition No-9 The die observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsement of the policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to and liability of the Company to make any payment under the policy.”

 

4.           So far, so good.
5.           The insurer vehicle was lost on 08.06.2007 the intimation whereof was sent to the Police Authorities on 13.06.2007 five days after the loss and to the Insurer on 06.08.2007, which is 58 days after the theft of the car. Claim was preferred for indemnification of the loss which claim was repudiated by the insurer vide their letter dated 12.12.2017, observing that the belated intimation constitutes breach of conditions 1, 8 and 9 of the policy issued, rendering the claim inadmissible.
6.           The said repudiation of the claim was assailed before the ld. District Forum which claim was allowed on non standard basis. The said order of the District Forum has been impugned before this Commission on the ground that the ld. District Forum have ignored to consider the terms of the policy before arriving at the decision.
7.           Respondents were noticed and in response thereto they have filed the reply resisting the appeal on the ground that there was virtually no delay in reporting to the police authority. The theft of the car was done on 08.06.2007, when he was away from his house the fact which came to the notice of the insured on his return to his place on 10.06.2007 and police Authorities were reported of the event on 13.06.2007. The respondent has further submitted that the intimation to the insurer was conveyed through telephone in their helpline no. 18004255544. Hence according to him there exists no delay, the ground relied upon by the insurer to repudiate the claim. Finally the respondent has stated that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the Insurance Companies cannot deny the genuine claim on the ground of delay.
8.           This matter was listed before this Commission for final hearing on 10.01.2019 when the counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their arguments based on their respective pleadings. I have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter. Short question for adjudication in the given case is whether the delay in intimation about the theft of the car to the insurer is sufficient a ground to repudiate the claim wholly or partly.
9.           The ld. Counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd., versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as reported in IV [2018] CPJ 1 (SC), has argued that there being delay, and the factum of delay is indisputed, the claim preferred as a fall out of the theft of the car is not payable, unless condition of delay is waived. The ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Om Prakash versus Reliance General Insurance and another as reported in (2017) 9 SCC 724 has argued that the Insurance claim cannot be rejected mere on the ground of delay in intimating insurer about the theft.
10. Point at issue is whether the delay can result in repudiation or otherwise, keeping in view the different orders on the subject. The issue can however be examined from another angle. The order impugned is to settle the claim on non-standard basis. Repudiation of the claim is on the ground of breach of condition of policy regarding intimation of the theft with respect to the delayed intimation. To put it differently their case is that there is violation of condition of the policy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Amatendu Satoo versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as reported in II [2010] CPJ 9 (SC)= (2010) 4 SCC 536 is pleased to hold that in case of violation of any condition of policy, as is the allegation of the Insurer in the subject, the claim of the complainant be settled on non standard basis. That is the direction contained in the orders of the District Forum impugned herein. If that be the case I am of the considered view, having regard to the discussion done and legal position explained, that there exists no infirmity in the orders passed by the District Forum and accordingly, dismissing the appeal, the complaint is accepted. The orders passed by the District Forum are upheld.
11. Ordered accordingly.
12. The appellant, the Insurance Company is directed to settle the claim as ordered within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of the order be sent to the District Forum for information.
14. File be consigned to record.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

                                                                                   Member