Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Daragad
Opponent through Lrd. Adv. Smt. Arati Soman
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(06/05/2014)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the insurance company for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows.
1] The complainant is resident of Aundh, Pune – 7. The opponent is the office of insurance company, which is situated at Sassoon Road, Pune – 1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased two wheeler of CBZ company and its registration number is MH-12, HG-5516. The price if the vehicle was Rs. 72,338/- and it was insured with the opponent for the period of 30/7/2011 to 29/7/2012. The insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.61,489/-. The complainant had parked his vehicle in the parking area in between 2/4/2012 to 3/4/2012. But the said vehicle was missing. Hence, he immediately lodged complaint in the police station. He had followed up his complaint, which was filed in the police station. But the police registered the same on 21/4/2012. The complainant has informed about the theft of the vehicle to the opponent on 6/4/2012. The police took search of the vehicle but
could not find the same. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.61,489/- but the opponent has denied the said claim. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint claiming insurance claim of Rs.61,489/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., compensation for mental and physical sufferings and cost of the proceeding.
2] The opponent has resisted the complaint by filing written version. It has denied the contents as regards causing deficiency in service. It is the case of the opponent that, there is inordinate delay in lodging FIR as well as intimation of theft of vehicle to the insurance company. It has also contended by the opponent that there was gross negligence on the part of the complainant and he had committed breach of terms and condition of the policy. Hence the claim of the complainant is rightly repudiated by the opponent. The opponent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has established that the opponent has caused deficiency in service by wrongly repudiating the insurance claim? | In the affirmative. |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
4] The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that, the complainant is the owner of the stolen vehicle and the same was insured with the opponent. The terms and the conditions of the policy are not in much dispute. It s also not in much dispute that certain amount of delay was caused for lodging FIR. But it is the opinion of the Forum that the said delay is not fatal to repudiate the claim of the complainant, as it is not the case of the opponent that no theft was committed. The opponent has produced the report of investigator, which is silent on the genuineness of the theft of the vehicle. The learned Advocate for the opponent strongly relied upon various judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of “Smt. Suman V/S The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” in rev. pet. No. 442/2013, “Trilochana Jane V/S New India Assurance Company Ltd.” in F.A. No. 321/2005 and “Devendra Singh V/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.” Reported in III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC).
In these judgments it has been observed that the insurance policy is a contract between the parties and the terms and the conditions of the contract should be strictly followed. If the intimation of theft of the vehicle is not given promptly to the police and insurance company, that amounts to breach of condition of the policy. On that ground the claim of the complainant was repudiated. It s significant to note that, even though there is certain breach of terms and condition of the policy, the claim of the complainant need not be repudiated, as it is observed in the Ruling of “Nitin Khandelwal V/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.” in civil appeal no. 3409 of 2008, that breach of terms and conditions does not germen in the case of the theft of the vehicle. Moreover it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in 2013(3) CPR 718 (NC) between “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/S M/S B. Mangatram & Co.” and 2013(2) CPR 462 (NC) between “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/S Smt. Malti Bhikhabhai Bhoya”. That even though, there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim need not be repudiated in toto. But it should be settled on the principle of ‘non-standard basis and the compensation to the extent of 75% of admissible claim should be given. In the light of the observations made by Hon’ble National Commission in the above Ruling, the complainant is entitled to receive 75% of insured declared value of the vehicle. The complainant is also entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation on the ground of mental and physical suffering and cost of the proceeding. In the result the Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order
** O R D E R **
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent
has caused deficiency in service by
wrongly repudiating the claim of the
complainant.
3. The opponent is directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 46,117/- (Rs. Forty Six
Thousand One Hundred and Seventeen
only), and an amount of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rs. Ten Thousand only) i.e. in all
An amount of Rs. 56,117/- (Rs. Fifty Six
Thousand One Hundred and Seventeen
only), to the complainant within six weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. On failure to pay the abovementioned
amount within six weeks, it shall carry
interest @ of 9% p.a. from the date of
filing of the complaint till its realization.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
6. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 06/05/2014
