Haryana

StateCommission

A/1099/2015

VISHAL YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOSIHYAR SINGH PUNIA - Opp.Party(s)

JAI SINGH YADAV

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :  1099 of 2015

Date of Institution:    22.12.2015

Date of Decision :     04.08.2016

 

Vishal Yadav s/o Shri Virpal Yadav, Resident of Village Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Hosihyar Singh Punia (Insurance Agent), Resident of Village Bisoha, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.

 

2.      Har Pal Singh, Manager, HP Insurance Services, Narnaul Road, Hari Nagar, Rewari. 

2.      Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

         

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondents No.1 and 2.

                             Shri V.K. Arya, for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Vishal Yadav-complainant, is in appeal against the order dated November 18^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby Consumer Complaint No.272 of 2012, seeking compensation with respect to his motor cycle, which was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy, was dismissed.

2.                Motor cycle Hero Honda Splendor +, bearing registration No.HR-43A-3532, owned by the complainant/appellant, was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/respondents, for the period February 3^rd, 2011 to February 2^nd, 2012, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) for Rs.28,000/-.

3.                On July 27^th, 2011 at about 10:00 P.M. the motor cycle was stolen in the area of Palam, Delhi. The Station House Officer, Police Station Palam Village, Delhi was informed immediately, vide application (Exhibit C-2). The Police registered F.I.R. No.217 (Exhibit C-3) on August 17^th, 2011 and after investigation submitted the Untraced Report (Exhibit C-6). Intimation was also given to the Insurance Company.  The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum. 

4.                The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the motor cycle was stolen on July 27^th, 2011; F.I.R. was lodged on August 17^th, 2011 and the Insurance Company was informed on August 24^th, 2011. Thus, there was delay of 21 days in lodging of the F.I.R. and 28 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. So, as per condition No.1 of the policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the insured amount. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.                Counsel heard. File perused.       

6.                Regarding the first plea that there was delay of 21 days in lodging of the F.I.R., it would be apposite to refer to the application (Exhibit C-2) which was submitted to the Police immediately after the motor cycle was stolen. No evidence to rebut it has been produced by the Insurance Company. So, the complainant cannot be held answerable for the delay of 21 days in registering the F.I.R. by the Police.  Even otherwise, Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy applies only to the occurrence of an accident and not to the theft cases.  Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Gurmeet Kaur & others, 2015(3)CLT 476, wherein it was held as under:-

“(i)     Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) – Insurance claim – Theft of vehicle – Delay in intimation to Insurance company – The clause in the Insurance Policy require to give immediate intimation of accident, but did not require the Insured to give immediate intimation of any loss of the vehicle to the Insurance Company – Held –That it applied only to the occurrence of an accident where a claim is to be lodged with the Insurance Company – The above referred clause does not require the Insured to give immediate intimation to the Insurance Company in case of theft of the vehicle – It is settled law that the terms of an Insurance Policy have to be strictly construed and the Court can neither add to nor subtract anything from the terms and conditions contained in the policy – A theft being a deliberate dishonest act, cannot be said to be an accident – Therefore, the complainant was not required, in this case, to give immediate intimation of the theft to the Insurance Company.”

“(ii)    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 2(1)(g) – Insurance claim – Theft of vehicle – Delay in FIR- Intimation given to police promptly, but FIR registered after 11 days by police – In FIR there is no reference of prompt intimation given by complainant- Held –The complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR – He discharged his contractual obligation under the policy for informing the concerned Police Station.”

7.                The next limb of arguments on behalf of the Insurance Company that it was informed after 28 days is not tenable because to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. The Insurance Company has failed to disclose the date on which information was received from the complainant.  Even otherwise, in the Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’), it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”. 

8.                The motor cycle was stolen and F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was lodged. The Police submitted the untraced report (Exhibit C-6). Once the Police have registered the F.I.R. and submitted untraced report, the question of breach of trust does not arise. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Companies take false pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants.

9.                In view of the above, it is abundantly proved on the record that the insured motor cycle of the complainant was stolen and he immediately informed the police as well as the Insurance Company. The complainant was not at fault on any account. The District Forum fell in error for not appreciating the above said cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.

10.              Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the motor cycle, that is, Rs.28,000/- to the complainant besides compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and cost of litigation.  The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the keys of the motor cycle, transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

 

 

Announced 04.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL