Advocate Prithpalsingh Nahal for the complainant

Advocate Aarti Soman for the Opponent

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-*-*-**-**-*-*-*-**-*-**-

 

 

This complaint is filed by consumer against the Insurance Company u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-

[1]                    Complainant is resident of Ubalengar, Wagholi who is self employed and had purchased Truck in the year 2008 in his own name. He had insured the said vehicle with the Opponent. On 28/10/2011 the said vehicle was stolen from Tingre Nagar Road where he was parking the vehicle regularly. He has lodged F.I.R. in Vishrantwadi Police Station immediately and then approached to the Opponent with copy of F.I.R. and Insurance Policy and narrated the incident of theft of vehicle and requested for settlement of insurance claim. The Opponent did not take any positive steps for settlement of claim. Hence, he has issued notice dated 5/9/2012 to the Opponent. But Opponent did not give any response to the notice. The insurance of the vehicle was valid for the period of 6/6/2011 to 5/6/2012. The vehicle was stolen on 28/10/2011. At the time of alleged incident of theft, the policy in question of was in existence. The complainant has filed this complaint for claim amount of Rs.12,00,000/- i.e. I.D.V. He has also asked compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical sufferings and Rs.25,000/- by way of cost of proceeding.

 

[2]                    The Opponent resisted the claim by filing written statement. The Opponent has admitted that the vehicle belonging to the complainant was insured with the Opponent. But it is flatly denied that the Opponent has repudiated the claim of complainant. The Opponent has appointed investigator and as per the report of the investigator the complainant had not produced certain documents. It is also contended that the complainant had reported the theft at belated stage to the Opponent. It is the case of the Opponent that there is inordinate delay in informing the incident of theft to the Opponent. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for compensation. The Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

[3]                    After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence, written argument and hearing the argument of both counsel, following points arise for my determination, The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-

 

 

[4]                    The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the vehicle which was stolen was insured with the Opponent for the relevant period i.e. for the period of 6/6/2011 to 5/6/2012 and it was stolen on 28/10/2011. It is not in much dispute that the complainant was using the said vehicle for self earning. Opponent has disputed the claim on two grounds. Firstly, the complainant has not reported the incident immediately to the Opponent after occurrence of theft and secondly, the claim of the complainant was not at all repudiated by the Opponent and there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant has reported the incident of theft on the same day i.e. on 28/10/2011. He has also argued that the complainant has reported the incident of theft to the opponent on toll free number. It is significant to note that the Opponent has appointed the investigating officer for investigation of the matter. The report of the investigator is filed by both the parties and it reveals from the conclusion of the said report that although the theft of the insured vehicle is genuine but insured has not provided the following documents i.e.- IT returns for last three years, explanation for missing duplicate keys, acknowledged copy of last delivery challan, loan termination letter and Form 35 duly signed, proof on non use of the vehicle or previous policy, service record of the insured vehicle.

                        It is significant to note that admittedly one key of cabin, two ignition keys, one diesel tank key were received by the Opponent. As soon as the Opponent has insured the vehicle there is no significance as regards the encumbrance on the vehicle by any financial institution. It is not in dispute that certain amount of loan was due from complainant to the financial institute. Moreover non submission of these documents, will not prejudice the rights of insurance company. There is dispute about the information of reporting the incident of theft to the Opponent. It is the case of the complainant that theft was reported immediately on the same day. But according to the Opponent it was not reported promptly. It is significant to note that when the FIR was lodged to the police station on the same day, police registered the crime and the matter was investigated and report was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who had granted ‘A’ summary. Then no prejudice will be caused to the Opponent even if the incident of theft is not reported to the opponent immediately and ultimately the investigator who was appointed on behalf of the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the investigation of the police machinery. The intention behind the clause of reporting the incident promptly is that there should not be any mischief at the hands of complainant. As the complainant had reported the incident to the police machinery promptly, it cannot be said that there was no theft of the insured vehicle. On the contrary, the investigator who has been appointed by the opponent has admitted in his report that the incident of theft of vehicle is genuine. In such circumstance, we are of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to the Opponent eventhough the incident of theft was not communicated to them promptly.

 

[5]                    According to the Insurance Company it has never repudiated the claim and the complaint is premature. It is significant to note that the incident of theft was occurred on 28/10/2011. After waiting for the period of near about 11 months the complainant had issued notice to the Opponent through Advocate. The said notice was not replied by the opponent. All these facts are sufficient to hold that there is cause of action and the opponent has repudiated the claim by conduct. 

 

[6]                    The learned Advocate for the opponent strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission First Appeal No. 321/2005 in case of National India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Trilochan Jain. In that case there was delay of nine days in intimation of theft to the insurance company and it was held that said delay is fatal.

[7]                    Another ruling on which learned Advocate for the Opponent has relied upon is reported in III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC) between Devendra Singh v/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. In that proceeding it has been observed that the theft was reported to the police after four days and to the insurance company after about one month. In those circumstances it has been observed that the rights of opponent were seriously prejudiced and the claim was dismissed.

[8]                    The facts of the present proceeding and those of the ruling cited by the learned Advocate are not identical hence case laws referred by the Opponent are not helpful to adjudicate the issue before this Forum.

 

[9]                    In the ruling in case of Appeal (Civil) 3409 of 2008 in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal decided on 8/5/2008 it has been observed that, the breach of terms and conditions of policy have no relevance in the cases of theft of vehicle and the insurance claim can be settled on non standard basis by awarding compensation to the tune of 75%.

            Eventhough the complainant has not produced documentary evidence as regards intimation of occurrence of theft to the opponent immediately this fact itself cannot be said as fatal and prejudice the rights of the opponent as the complainant has intimated the theft immediately to the police machinery who had investigated the matter promptly as the investigator of the insurance company has also observed that the theft of the vehicle is genuine. In these circumstances, we held that the Opponent has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The value of the insured vehicle has been shown in the policy as Rs.12,00,000/-. Hence, we held that the complainant is entitled to receive the said claim amount from the Opponent. The complainant is also entitled to receive compensation on he ground of deficiency in service, mental and physical sufferings to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant is further entitled to receive Rs.3,000/- towards costs of proceeding.

 

 

1.                  Complaint is partly allowed.

2.                  It is hereby declared that the Opponent has caused deficiency in service by repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant wrongly.

3.                  The Opponent is directed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant i.e. the I.D.V. of the stolen vehicle within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.

4.                  The Opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental and physical sufferings and costs of Rs.3,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.

5.                  If the amount is not paid or deposited within the stipulated period, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

6.                  Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.

 

Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

Place – Pune

Date – 14/11/2013