Advocate Vidyadhar B. Koshe for the Complainant
Advocate Aarti A. Soman for the Opponent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-*-*-**-**-*-*-*-**-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 11th December 2013
This complaint is filed by consumer against the Opponent Insurance Company for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is resident of Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur. He is owner of Truck No. MH 12 FC 6095. It was insured with the Opponent for the period of 23/2/2010 to 22/2/2011 for Rs.9,04,960/-. It is the case of complainant that on 7/2/2011 the disputed truck was parked it near the garage at Barshi. On 9/2/2011 when he returned from Bhiwandi to Barshi, he found that the truck was stolen by somebody. He informed this fact to the owner of the truck and then went to Barshi Police station for lodging FIR. Police directed him to search the vehicle for two days and then lodge the FIR. He searched vehicle for two days but could not find it. Hence, police registered FIR on 12/2/2011 u/s 379 of Indian Penal Code. Complainant has filed insurance claim with the opponent but the opponent has repudiated the claim on the ground that the FIR was not lodged promptly. Intimation was not given to the Insurance company immediately and there was negligence on the part of the complainant. According to the complainant, the claim was wrongly repudiated. Hence, he has claimed Rs.9,04,960/- as well as damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical sufferings.
[2] Opponent resisted the claim by filing written version in which it has denied the contents of complaint in toto. According to the Opponent, eventhough the truck was stolen on 9/2/2011, the intimation was given on 18/2/2011 and the FIR was also filed after three days. That amounts to breach of conditions of policy and hence the opponent has rightly repudiated the claim. Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documents and written argument as well as hearing the argument of both counsel following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that opponent has wrongly repudiated the insurance claim and caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons-
As to the point Nos. 1 and 2-
[4] The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the truck which was stolen was belonging to the complainant and insured with the opponent for the period of 23/2/2010 to 22/2/2011 for Rs.9,04,960/-. It reveals from the evidence which is produced on behalf of Opponent itself that it has appointed one investigator. The report of the investigator is placed on record and it reveals from the same that the truck was parked near the house of the driver and then he went to attend the marriage. On the next day, he found that the truck was missing. It reveals from the report of the investigator that the FIR was lodged on 12/2/2011 i.e. third day after the commission of theft. It further reveals from the report that the owner has promptly informed about the theft of truck to the RTO authorities. The investigator has opined that the complaint about the theft of truck is genuine. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was deliberate or wrongful delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that as police directed him to search the stolen truck within vicinity and avoided to register the FIR immediately. The explanation given by the complainant cannot be said as an unreasonable explanation as it is a common experience that police are always avoiding to register the FIR of cognizable offences in order to shrunk from the responsibility. The learned Advocate for the opponent argued before me that the complainant has not intimated the fact about the commission of theft to the insurance company immediately and that would be fatal as regards settlement of claim. According to the complainant he has informed the incident of theft to the opponent promptly by telephonic message and this fact is mentioned in the affidavit of the complainant. It is significant to note that the owner of the truck is residing at Shikrapur, Tal. Shirur. Truck is stolen from Barshi, District Solapur. Complainant is resident of rural area. In these circumstances, the delay in filing claim with the opponent can be ignored. The intention behind the terms and condition as regards prompt information to police and insurance company is that there should not be mischief played by the owner of the vehicle. It is not the case of the opponent that the complainant himself had committed mischief, lodged false FIR and claim with the insurance company. On the contrary, investigator has fairly admitted in the report that the truck was stolen. In these circumstances, the delay in intimating the insurance company cannot be said as fatal to adjudicate the claim between the parties. The learned Advocate for the opponent has placed reliance upon the ruling of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, between Devendra Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Reported in III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC). In the said proceeding there was delay of four days for lodging FIR.
[5] It is the case of the complainant that there was no actual delay as the driver of the truck immediately rushed to the police, but police avoided to register the FIR. Hence, the ruling on which the learned Advocate for the opponent placed reliance upon is not helpful to adjudicate the present proceeding as the facts of the present complaint and that of the ruling sited above are not identical. In the result, this Forum held that, Opponent has wrongly repudiated the insurance claim and complainant is entitled for Rs. 9,04,960/-. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical sufferings and costs of the litigation. We answer the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. 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. Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs. 9,04,960/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical sufferings and costs of the litigation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the 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 – 11/12/2013
