BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NUH (MEWAT)
Consumer Complaint No: 23 of 2016 Date of Institution: 14.10.2016 Date of Decision: 14.11.2017
Mubin son of Ramjan, resident of House No.142, Village Rojkmeo, Tehsil Nuh District Mewat.
.….Complainant.
Versus
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Mehroli Road, Sector-14, Gurgaon through its Manager.
- Relish Trading Company Pvt. Limited @ Religare finvest limited, 8, second floor, Tower A DLF Cyber City Phase 2, Gurgaon District Gurgaon through its Manager.
…. Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE Mr. Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President.
Mrs. Urmil Beniwal, Member.
Mrs. Keeran Bala, Member.
Present: Sh. Sazid Hussain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 28.2.2017.
ORDER R.S. DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55P/2871, which was insured with the opposite party No. 1 for the period from 24.10.2012 to 23.10.2013 vide policy No. 2315200157038401000. The aforesaid vehicle was financed with the opposite party No. 2. The said vehicle was stolen on the night of 29.9.2013 in the area of Mewat Hotel, P.S. Tauru by unknown person. After theft of said vehicle, the complainant lodged the FIR No. 422 dated 28.10.2013 under Section 379 of IPC in P.S. Tauru. The complainant informed the opposite party-insurance Company regarding the theft of vehicle on the same day. After fulfill of requirements, the complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company for releasing the claim amount but the opposite party refused to pay the claim amount deliberately. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may be accepted and the opposite parties be directed to pay the claim of the theft vehicle as per insurance policy after adjusting the finance amount alongwith interest @ 18% Per annum thereon and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-for mental agony & harassment as well as Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant initially filed the complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Nuh at Mewat wherein the complaint of the complainant was decided on 08.01.2016 by giving the liberty to the complainant to file the complaint before the civil court or any other appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance. Thereafter a CWP No.5441 of 2016 was filed against the order of Permanent Lok Adalat, Nuh dated 8.1.2016 before the Hon’ble P&H High Court, Chandigarh which was withdrawn on 3.5.2016 with liberty to file a fresh one.
- On notice, the opposite party No.1 put in appearance and filed written reply agitating that the complainant has concealed the real and material facts from the Hon’ble Forum so, the complaint is not maintainable. It has been contended by the opposite party No. 1 that the intimation regarding the theft of vehicle was given by the complainant to the opposite party after a delay of 24 days and FIR was also lodged after 30 days of the alleged incident. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, so the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 2.12.2013. The complaint has been filed by the complainant is false, bogus and concocted one. Dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000/- is prayed for.
- Notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2 not received back either served or unserved after passing of statutory period. None has also appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. So the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.2.2017.
- In evidence the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of written complaint to local police dated 1.10.2013 by Kashmin the driver of stolen vehicle Annexure-1, copy of FIR dated 28.10.2013 under Section 379 P.S. Tauru Annexure-2, copy of RC of the stolen vehicle in the name of the complainant Annexure-3, copy of insurance cover Annexure -4, Closure report of local police Ex. C1 and closed the evidence. On the contrary, the opposite party has also placed on record the affidavit of Pankaj Kumar, Legal Manager (Claim) Ex. RW1/A, Insurance policy of stolen vehicle Ex. RW1/1, purported statement of Kashmin and Mobin Ex. RW1/2 & Ex. RW1/3, ‘No Claim’ letter dated 2.12.2013 issued by the opposite party Ex. RW1/4. Besides this, the opposite party has also given written arguments along with citations.
- After going through the evidence of both the parties, their written arguments and citations, we have concluded that only the citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court, Punjab and Haryana have to be looked into. The citation of Hon’ble National Commission cannot override the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Court. The main citation on behalf of opposite party cited in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha in Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 which was decided on 17.10.2010 wherein the stand of the insurance Company of rejecting the claim of insured was upheld due to the reason of informing the insurance company after about 4 months. This citation would have been sufficient to dismiss the claim of the complainant in the present complaint, had there been no circular issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA for short) to all insurance companies including the opposite party dated 20.9.2011 after the present citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court. We reproduce below the relevant part of the circular, which is binding on the opposite party-insurance company as well, 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 the 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.
The insurers’ decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holder losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.
Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution. It is also advised that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.
The insurers are advised to incorporate additional wordings in the policy documents, suitable enunciating insurers stand to condone delay on merit for delayed claims where the delay is proved to be for reasons beyond the control of the insured.’
And it clears the confusion regarding the technical objection of the opposite party of delayed intimation.
- Though, no concrete proof of delayed intimation has been placed on record by the opposite party to disprove the sworn statement of the complainant regarding intimation of theft immediately. However, even for the sake of arguments, we presume that there is delay in intimation by 23 days, this objection cannot come to the rescue of the opposite party, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 21383 of 2016 decided on 9.12.2016 wherein above-stated circular of IRDA of 20.9.2011 is incorporated, so judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha is not relevant after issuance of circular by IRDA on 20.9.2011. This judgment of Apex Court has also been discussed in the judgment of Hon’ble High Court.
- We now discuss Ex. RW1/2 and Ex. RW1/3 alleged statements of Kashmin and Mobin. The complainant has denied scribing these two statements. He has also denied signing of these documents either by Kashmin and Mobin. After strictly examining the signatures on other documents which are not in dispute, the signatures of Kashmin are fake and signature of Mobin in English are also fake as he has nowhere signed in English on any documents placed on file. The opposite party has also failed to counter this stand of complainant by placing any document on record wherein the signature of Mobin Khan are in English enabling the forum to scrutinize and tally the Ex. RW1/2 and Ex. RW1/3. So, we reject these documents.
- Learned counsel for the opposite party raised on objection regarding jurisdiction of this Forum. In this regard, the vehicle in question was stolen from Mewat Hotel Tauru and the FIR U/S 379 IPC registered at P.S. Tauru and the cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
- In view of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted and the opposite party No. 1-Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 19,48,500/- (total Insured Declared Value of the vehicle as Rs. 1950000/- minus Rs. 1500/- compulsory deductible (IMT-21) mentioned in insurance policy = amount comes out as IDV Rs. 1948500/-) (nineteen lac forty eight thousand five hundred rupees only) to the complainant within 30 days alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 14.10.2016 till its payment. The opposite party No. 1-Insurance Company is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on 14.11.2017
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
14.11.2017
Note:- This judgment consisting six pages, each pages has been checked
carefully, and signed by us.
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
14.11.2017
