DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 66 OF 2015
Bir Bahadur Singh,
S/O: Birendra Pratap Singh,
R/O: Gumadera, T.R.L Colony,PO/ PS: Belpahar,
Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………………………………. Complainant.
Versus
- ICICI Lombard,
General Insurance Company Ltd.,
15 Park Street, Apeejay House,
Block-B, 7th Floor, Kolkata-700 016.
- ICICI Lombard,
General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Jharsuguda Branch,
Adjacent to ICICI Bank,
Kali Mandir Road, Jharsuguda, Odisha................................... Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri N.K. Mishra, Adv. & Associate.
For the OPP. Parties Shri B.N.Dutta, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 19.04.2016
Present
1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Smt. A. Nanda, Member (W).
Shri S.L. Behera, President : - The complaint case in brief are that the complainant is the owner of TATA,Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-23B-5877, got insured his vehicle with the Insurance Company I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., from dtd. 24.04.2013 to dt.23.04.2014, and the same was stolen by some unknown culprit while the said vehicle was parked at B.C.O.M Mines Parking Area, soon after the occurrence the complainant along with his friend searched for the said vehicle in the parking area as well as different border area i.e. Jamshedpur, Ranchi, Raipur, Keonjhar, Badbil and Sambalpur but failed to trace out of the vehicle. At last FIR was lodge before the Belpahar Police Station, in respect to the stolen insured vehicle. Belpahar Police registered P.S Case No. 16 dtd. 07.03.2014 U/S-379 IPC wherein the police certified that some of the culprit has arrested
and some other are yet to be arrested. The aforesaid incident of lost of the vehicle was also intimated to the insurance company and subsequently and insurance claim was preferred with the O.ps. Insurance company after observing all formalities required for filing of the claim. It is the allegation of the complainant is that despite of much persuasion and correspondence made by the complainant the insurance company remain silent and lastly the insurance company issued its repudiation letter dtd. 09.11.2015 vide reference No. MOT/ TT/ March,2015 addressing to the complainant on the ground stating that the vehicle was stolen on 25.02.2014 and FIR has been lodged on dtd. 07.03.2014 after 10 days without any satisfactory explanation, which violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, further the complainant has intimated the O.Ps. regarding theft of vehicle after 16 days of the date of loss. It is also stated by the complainant that the grounds on which his claim had been repudiated is not justified as he lost his vehicle completely due to the incident of theft by unknown culprits. Aggrieved with the said act of repudiation by the insurance company on a non-justified ground, alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P the complaint is instituted by the complainant against the insurance company claiming total value of the insured vehicle amounting to Rs.7,26,022/- only along with compensation and cost.
Documents relating to Xerox copy of police papers, copy of policy, letter dtd. 16.03.2016 are filed on behalf of the complainant.
2. Being notice by the Forum the O.Ps. i.e. Insurance company enter appearance through their counsels and filed written version and contested the case. It is admitted by the O.ps. that the policy of insurance bearing No. 3003/ 709/ 5529 / 01/ 000 was issued infavour of Bir Bahadur Singh for the vehicle Tata Truck bearing No. OR 23B-5877 and it was valid from 24.04.2013 to 23.04.2014 mid night. The said policy was issued as per terms and conditions, limitation as has been mentioned and attached to the policy itself. It is submitted by the O.Ps. that during the continuance of the policy , the complainant lodged a claim before the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle. The Insurance company after through enquiry and also getting investigation report repudiate the claim on the ground that the vehicle was stolen on 25.02.2014 and FIR has been lodged on dtd. 07.03.2014 after 10 days without any satisfactory explanation which violate the terms and conditions of the policy. Further the complainant has intimated the O.ps. regarding theft of the vehicle after 16 days of date of lost and the matter of repudiation was intimated to the complainant vide reference No. MOT/ TT/ March,2015 on dtd. 09.11.2015 It is further submitted by the O.Ps that the claim has been lodged by the complainant after 16 days of the date of loss and some culprit arrested in this case and there is possibility of recover the vehicle by the police as the investigation is still pending so there is clear violation of the conditions of policy in this case, hence their repudiation of this claim of the complainant is justified. All other allegations level against the O.Ps. by the complainant are denied and prayed for dismissal of this case.
3. We have heard from both the parties , perused the materials available in the case record. During the course of hearing putting reliance on the documents put forth on behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel Sri N.K. Mishra submitted that in view of the recent Judgment Reported in 2012(4) CPR N.C, the Honorable National Commission held that
Insurance company cannot repudiate a genuine claim. Beside the above decision the learned counsel also relied on another decision of the Honorable National Commission wherein it is held that in case of theft of the vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The same is reported in 2012(4) CPR 196 N.C.
The authority by the Honorable Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Natin Khandelwal 2008 CTJ 680 S.C was also placed before us. The above stated decision of the Honorable Apex Court apply to this case on all force. Its relevant extract is reproduced as follows” 13. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatch or stolen. In case of theft of the vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The Appellant Insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that, there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The insurance company can not repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of the vehicle due to theft.”
The learned counsel has also relied on another decision of Hon’ble Hariyana State CDR Commission repudiate in 2014(2)CLT-390 wherein the circular dated 20.09.2011 was issued by the IRDA reference IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 to all life insurer and non-life insurer RE delay in claim intimation/ documents submission in respect to the (1) all life insurance contract and (2) all non-life individual and group insurance contract that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bona-fide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. Rejection of claim on purely procedural grounds is a mechanical fashion will result in a policy holder using confidence in the insurance industries, giving rise to excessive litigation.
Thus repudiation of complainant’s claim was contrary to circular of IRDA as stated above because intimation to the insurance company after 16 days is significant in genuine claim of the complainant. A person who lost his vehicle which was used by him for earning livelihood straight way may not go to the insurance company to claim compensation. At the first instance he himself make effort to search the vehicle. Filing of claim with the insurance company is the last resort. It is indeed a deficiency in service on the part of O.ps. for repudiating the complainant’s claim on a flimsy ground. It would not be fair or reasonable to reject even the genuine claims of the insurer. 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 prove to be genuine.
On perusal of the copy of insurance policy of the lost insured vehicle the total value of the same is mentioned to Rs.7,26,022/- only the theft of the vehicle took place on dtd. 25.02.2014, the repudiation of the claim was intimated on dtd. 09.11.2015. In view of the above stated decision we hold the repudiation to be illegal and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. The complainant is entitled to get his claim on the non-standard basis. The complainant must have sustained much
harassment and mental agony due to the said deficient act of the O.Ps. Insurance company and for the same he is entitled to be compensated. Accordingly the complaint is allowed. Hence the order;
ORDER
The O.Ps. Insurance company namely ICICI Lombard General Insurance ltd. is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,44,516.50P ( Rupees five lakh forty four thousand five hundred sixteen and fifty paise ) i.e. 75% of the total insured value of the vehicle of Rs.7,26,022/- calculated on non-standard basis along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of theft i.e. dtd. 25.02.2014 till the date of its realization. The complainant is also to get Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand) only towards costs from the O.Ps. Insurance Company. The above stated directions are to be complied by the O.Ps. Insurance company within four weeks from the date of order.
Accordingly the case is dispose of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 19th day of April 2016, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree,
A.Nanda, sr.Member S.L.Behera,President
Dictated and corrected by me.
S. L. Behera,President.
