Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 359.
Instituted on : 24.06.2011.
Decided on : 30.07.2015.
Ram Niwas son of Mam Chand r/o Jind Bye Pass, opposite petrol Pump, opposite Bus Stand, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd floor, Appu Ghar Shopping Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vijay Parmar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-46B-5869 and got insured the same with the opposite party for the period from 13.08.2010 to 12.08.2011 and sum insured under the policy is Rs.800000/- for the said vehicle. It is averred that the said vehicle of the complainant had been stolen and the complainant lodged FIR No.609 dated 21.08.2010. The complainant also intimated to the opposite party immediately after the theft of said vehicle. It is averred that that complainant after submitting all the relevant documents, requested the opposite party to disburse the claim in his favour but any heed was not paid to his genuine requests. Complainant served a legal notice dated 25.05.11 to the opposite party but no response has ever been received. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.800000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the alleged vehicle has been given on hire to M/s Satpal building material at the time of alleged theft. It is averred that there is delay of 2 days in informing the police and 5 days to the answering opposite party which is sufficient to repudiate the false claim of the complainant. As the same is breach of the insurance policy terms and condition no.1 and from these facts it is very much clear that the role of the complainant is suspicious in the said loss. As such the claim has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and affidavit Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per cover note Ex.C1/Ex.R2, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and IDV of the vehicle is Rs.800000/-. It is also not disputed that as per FIR Ex.R3, the alleged vehicle had been stolen on 19.08.2010 and the FIR was lodged on 21.08.2010. The untrace report has also been placed on record Ex.C4. After the theft the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed the investigator who has submitted his report Ex.R5 but the opposite party as per his letter Ex.R1 has repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured vehicle was given on hire to M/s Satpal Building Material.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the vehicle was given on hire to M/s Satpal Building Material. It is further contended by the opposite party that there was delay of 2 days in informing the police and 5 days in giving intimation to the opposite party. To prove the fact of giving the vehicle on hire, opposite party has placed on record copy of statement of insured Ex.R6 and of Anoop Singh Ex.R7. But the alleged statements are merely a photocopy and are not supported with the affidavit. As such the same cannot be relied upon. Regarding the intimation about the alleged incident to the police and to the opposite party it is observed that as per copy of FIR Ex.C3, the complainant had parked the vehicle on 19.08.2010 and came to know about the theft on 21.08.2010 and the FIR was lodged on 21.08.2010 hence there is no delay in lodging the FIR. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Repudiation- On the ground that there was delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R. and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?-Held-No-FIR lodged 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-Appeal dismissed”, as per 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane-The delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case.”, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”. In view of the aforesaid law which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party is liable to pay the I.D.V of the vehicle to the complainant.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the I.D.V of the vehicle i.e. Rs.800000/-(Rupees eight lac only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.06.2011 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
