BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 Date of Institution: 17.4.2015
Date of Decision: 26.8.2015
Nirmal Singh, Aged 47 years, Son of Bawa Singh, Resident of Pioneer Colony, House No.633, Village Alle Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Regd, Office: ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025, through its authorized signatory.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Mall Road, Near Udham Singh Chowk, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Hardeep Bajaj, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Sh. J.S. Kamboj, Advocate.
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of Hero Honda Splendor Plus, which was insured with the opposite parties, which was valid for the period from 21.2.2013 to 20.2.2014. The motor cycle of the complainant was stolen at Ferozepur Cantt. The complainant lodged the report to the Police Station, Ferozepur Cantt on 27.10.2013 regarding stolen of his motor cycle. The complainant also informed the opposite parties and their agent. Thereafter, the complainant tried his best to trace the motor cycle, but to no effect. The report of this incident was given
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //3//
to the Police of Police Station Ferozepur Cantt on the same day i.e. on 27.10.2013. But the official of opposite party told to the complainant that Police will search the vehicle and it was suggested by the Police official to the complainant that complainant should also try to search the vehicle and if the same is not traced then the Police will lodge the F.I.R. Thereafter the complainant tried his best to trace the vehicle, but the same was not traced. The Police Officials lodged a F.I.R bearing No.177, dated 10.11.2013, U/S 379 IPC at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties and supplied all the required documents to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on 25.4.2014 on the ground that F.I.R has been lodged for stolen vehicle after 14 days and claim has been lodged after 26 days of the date of incident. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.19,681/- as sum-insured alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of theft of the motor cycle in question i.e. 27.10.2013 till realization and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing financial loss, mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.5000/- as costs.
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //4//
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint. In its written reply, the opposite parties took some preliminary objection interalia that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nautre; that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle in question was allegedly stolen on 27.10.2013 and intimation to the police was given on 10.11.2013 with a delay of 14 days and the opposite parties were intimated on 22.11.2013 with a delay of 26 days by the complainant; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hand; that the complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been pleaded in the written reply that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties. The complainant inform the opposite parties after 26 days of the occurrence and to intimation to the Police was given after 14 days of the incident. The claim of the complainant was investigated by Mr. Rajiv K. Nischal and the said investigator visited the place of incident, recorded the statement of complainant, his son Gurjant Singh and also collected the relevant documents. Thereafter, the said investigator submitted his report dated
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //5//
30.11.2013 to the opposite parties and the opposite parties after perusal of the report came to the conclusion that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by giving late intimation to the police as well as to the opposite parties. The opposite parties also wrote letters on 3.1.2014, 17.1.2014 to explain the reason why the complainant has given the late information to the police and the opposite parties, but no reply was received by the opposite parties from the complainant. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter 20.11.2014. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1&2/1 to Ex. OP-1&2/9 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //6//
5. The ownership and insurance of the motor cycle is admitted by the parties. Theft of the motor cycle is also admitted by the opposite parties. The grievances of the complainant is that the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has violated the Terms and Conditions of the policy as the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 27.10.2013 and intimation to the police was given on 10.11.2013 with a delay of 14 days and the complainant intimated the opposite parties regarding theft of the vehicle on 22.11.2013 with a delay of 26 days which is clear cut violation of Terms and Conditions of the policy. The version of the complainant is that when on 27.10.2013, the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen and the complainant gave the information to the Police Station Ferozepur Cantt on the same day i.e. 27.10.2013. The official of the Police told to the complainant that the police will search the motorcycle and also suggested the complainant to search the motorcycle and assured that in case motorcycle will not trace, then the Police will lodge an F.I.R regarding theft of motorcycle. The complainant tried his best to trace the motorcycle but motorcycle was not traced. The complainant approached many a times to Police Officials for take some action and then at last on dated 27.10.2013, the Police Officials lodged a
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //7//
F.I.R bearing No.177, dated 10.11.2013, U/S 379 IPC, Police Station Ferozepur Cantt regarding theft of the motorcycle. The version of the complainant fully supported by his affidavit that he tried his best to search the motorcycle and approached the Police Official to register the F.I.R regarding stolen of the vehicle in question and from pleading and affidavit EX.C-1 of the complainant it is proved that the complainant try to locate his vehicle and informed the Police time to time, There is no fault on the part of the complainant, if the Police has not lodged the complaint immediate on the same day of occurrence. The complainant also pleaded in the complaint that he also informed the opposite parties and their agent. The complainant received a letter dated 25.4.2014 repudiating the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties. After receipt of the said letter, the complainant many a times approached the opposite parties and cleared the fact that the complainant immediately intimated the opposite parties, but the claim of the complainant was not registered by them. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties are that they sent two letters Ex.OP-1&2/2 and Ex.OP-1&2/3 to clear to explain of delay of 26 days in giving to the companies. The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that he has not received any such letters from the opposite parties. The opposite parties has not placed on
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //8//
record any evidence that the letters sent by the opposite parties and were received by the complainant and from the receipt which is pasted by the opposite parties on Ex.OP-1&2/3 has not proved that the complainant received the letters which is sent by the opposite parties as alleged by the opposite parties. The complainant pleaded in the complaint that he has not received any Terms and Conditions of the policy from the opposite parties. The version of the complainant is duly supported his affidavit. The opposite parties has not denied the allegation of the complainant in their written reply that the complainant has not received any terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is not bound by the Terms and Conditions of the policy, when the Terms and Conditions was not supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant and the claim of the complainant cannot repudiate by the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant breach the Terms and Conditions of the policy. The complainant also explained the reason in the affidavit regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The complainant tried his best to locate his vehicle. It is also proved from the pleading that the complainant many a time requesting to Police to lodge the F.I.R immediate. The complainant also pleaded in the complaint that he informed to the
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //9//
opposite parties immediately after stolen of the vehicle. No delay is proved on the part of the complainant. The evidence available on the record establishes that it is a genuine claim of the complainant. F.I.R No.177 dated 10.11.2013 was recorded and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company. Thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced. It was a genuine claim of the complainant and in view of precedent laid down by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula- in case titled as “Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar”, 2014(2) CLT390,” wherein reference of the circular dated September 20th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has been given. It has been specifically mentioned by IRDA that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the complainant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine. The operative part of the circular 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.
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //10//
The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with 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 was delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”
The instant case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Rajesh Kumar’s case (supra)
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.19,681/-as sum-insured along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation letter dated 25.4.2014 till realization. Further opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to
C.C. No. 165 of 2015 //11//
the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with by the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
26.8.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
