DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.44 of 2018
Date of institution: 18.01.2018
Date of Decision:18.05.2022
Rajesh Sareen aged about 45 years son of Late Sh. Shiv Ram Sareen, resident of 660, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana
….Complainant
Versus
- M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, registered office at ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Sevarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Manager Director
- M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Branch Office at Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh.A.K. Kalsy, Advocate, for complainant
Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate, for OPs
Order dictated by Sh. Ranjit Singh, President,
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant purchased Motor Cycle Splendor Plus Cast Wheel, in the year 2008 for Rs.41,250/- manufactured by M/s Hero Motocorp from M/s Sai Motors, Gill Road, Ludhiana vide invoice No.6704 dated 17.11.2008. The same was being regularly insured by the opposite party through its branch i.e. OP No.2 since the day of purchase. The policy bearing No.3005/25375012/10976/000 vaild from 18.11.2014 to 17.11.2015. However, the opposite party has wrongly mentioned the policy number in its communication as 3005/96714713/00/000. The insured vehicle was stolen from park near BCM School, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana on 4.8.2015 in the morning when the complainant was taking his morning walk, the motor cycle was duly locked and the key was with the complainant, which has been taken by the surveyor in its visit to Ludhiana and immediately the same was reported to the policy division No.7 through application which was marked to ASI Karnail Singh at 6.00 AM in the morning. But the police did not take any action in the matter, so the complainant has moved an application dated 17.8.2015 to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana then again on 31.8.2015 but all in vain. Then again on 27.1.2016 the complainant again moved an application to the Commissioner of Police so with the intervention of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana an FIR bearing No.17 was registered at PS Division No.7. However, the motor cycle could not be traced so far. It is further alleged that the complainant also informed to the opposite parties regarding the theft on 4.8.2015 with the OP No.2 and they instructed the complainant to call Mr. Arvind at their Chandigarh office and he undertook with the complainant that he is sending his surveyor, he will meet the complainant soon. The surveyor came after some days and took in his possession one affidavit duly sworn by the complainant, along with key and other documents to the effect that the stolen vehicle could not be traced but the claim was not paid rather the same was rejected on 18.1.2016 on the ground that there is delay in giving notice to the police and FIR is not providing and delay in informing the opposite parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant
- To pay compensation an amount of Rs.30,000/- on account of mental suffering, harassment and torture.
- To pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.
- To pay interest @ 24% per annum on the claimed amount w.e.f. 4.8.2015 till realization.
- In reply, the OPs has taken various objections; that the complainant is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; that the present complaint is false and frivolous one; that the complainant made concocted story to usurp the money from the insurance company; that the complaint is totally doubtful; that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission. On merits, it is stated that the insured cannot go out of motor vehicle act and policy terms and conditions on any ground. On receipt of claim intimation, the OP immediately deputed investigator Jogeshwar Singh, cross check consultants to investigate the matter. The surveyor was submitted his report dated 12.9.2015 and in the said report, the Surveyor has stated that the vehicle was on the name of insured Rajesh Sareen bearing registration No.PB-10-CM-0788. On 4.8.2015 at 5.30 PM, the vehicle was stolen at near BCM School Park, Sector 32, PS Division No.7, Ludhiana, He tried find nearby the area and nothing know about the vehicle. Insured informed on the sport to PS Division No.7, Ludhiana at 6.00 PM but insured was not able to provide us any documentary proof regarding confirmation of giving any intimation to police regarding the theft of his vehicle. It is further stated that notice shall be given in writing to the police immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. 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 company in securing the conviction of the offender. The insured gave the intimation about the theft of the vehicle after 12 days. Rest of the allegations leveled by the complainant has denied by the answering OPs.
- In support of his evidence, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered certain documents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has also tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully and minutely.
- Before proceeding further, we would like to note down condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy, by placing reliance upon which, the claim of the complainant was rejected. The said condition reads thus;
"Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter, claim writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest for fatel inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under the policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.
6. In the first part of the said condition, it is mandated that on suffering of any loss or damage, immediate intimation be sent to the company. The latter part of the condition states that in case of major theft/loss, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. It is pertinent to mention here that word "immediate" would not mean information to be sent within 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours. It needs to be sent within a reasonable time and what is the reasonable time, it all dependents upon facts of each case. It is important to mention here that it is a common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holders in the insurance industry. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which has been otherwise provide to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. Hence, the plea regarding condition No.1 of the OPs is rejected.
7. Now, the second question arise before us is that the complainant lodged the FIR after delay of 12 days. In the present case, the vehicle was stolen on 4.8.2015, at about 5.30 PM. Now a days every layman keeps all the documents of his vehicle in his vehicle. There is no denying that the vehicle was stolen and all the proofs like Registration Certificate, Insurance and Pollution Certificate can be in the vehicle. Due to absence of any documentary proof, the police did not register the FIR. In support of his claim, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.C3 to Ex.C3, through these documents/letters, the complainant repeatedly made requests to the police for registration of the FIR but police did not register the FIR.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant has brought our attention on judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, case titled as Anandbhai Mansangbhai Chaudhary Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided on 11.02.2020, wherein it is held that circular issued by the Insurance Regulator Development Authority (IRDA) No.IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09.2011 dated 20.09.2011, has instructed to all its general insurance companies to consider the genuine claims filed even with delay and should not be rejected only on the ground of delay.
9. It is important to mention here that the OPs has placed on record the policy schedule Ex.R2, which is mentioned that total IDV of the vehicle is of Rs.21411/-. So the complainant is entitled for the said IDV.
10. In view of the discussion made above, present complaint is allowed against opposite parties and directed to pay Rs.21411/- (IDV Value of the vehicle) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its payment to the complainant alongwith Rs.20,000/- for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
Announced
May 18, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
President
(Ranvir Kaur)
Member
CC No.44 of 2018
Sh. GS Kalyan, Adv. For OPs
Arguments completed. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
May,18 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
