DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation, presently known as DARCL Logistics Limited, having its Office at SCO No. 116, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh, through its authorized representative Sh. Ashok Sharma s/o Late Sh. Bodhraj Sharma, Manager HR of the Company.

              ---Complainant

Vs

ICICI Lombard GIC Limited, 1^st Floor, SCO No. 24-25, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160 017, through its Manager.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:    SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA             PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Jainainder Saini, Counsel for Complainant.

Opposite Party ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        The Complainant had purchased an insurance policy for its Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. 0R09K 7203 to be used by its Employees for its office at Barbil, effective from 02.06.2009 to 01.06.2010 (Policy Annexure C-1).

          The Complainant has stated that on 20.03.2010 Anil Kumar Goyal working as Senior Branch Manager in the Complainant’s Branch Office had parked the motorcycle in front of his house. The motorcycle was found missing the next morning on 21.03.2010. The said Anil Kumar Goyal immediately gave a written complaint regarding the theft to the concerned police station on 21.03.2010 (Complaint Annexure C-2). Opposite Party was also informed accordingly on telephone regarding the theft of the motorcycle. The claim was also lodged. However, when the Opposite Party failed to appoint an Investigator, Sh. Nitin Jaiswal, who is looking after the insurance department of the Complainant, sent an e-mail to the Opposite Party on 23.03.2010, requesting the Opposite Party to appoint an Investigator, immediately (Annexure C-3). It was also stated in the e-mail that as the copy of F.I.R. has not been received from the Police, it would be sent when received. The Opposite Party accordingly appointed an Investigator, who conducted a survey. All relevant papers were handed over by the Complainant to the Surveyor/ Investigator at the time of spot survey. When the police did not take any action on the complaint dated 21.3.2010 given by the Complainant, the Complainant gave another complaint dated 19.9.2010 to the Incharge, Police Station, Barbil (Annexure C-4). The Police did not lodge any F.I.R. even then and thereafter the Complainant moved another application/ complaint dated 12.11.2010 to the Incharge, Police Station, Barbil, for registration of F.I.R. (Annexure C-5). On this application/ complaint, the Police lodged an F.I.R. No. 173 dated 12.11.2010 u/s 379 I.P.C. and a copy of the same was also supplied to the Complainant. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that the information was received from the Complainant on 12.11.2010. The Complainant has stressed that the information had actually been given to the Police on 21.03.2010 and 19.09.2010 also. After receiving a copy of the F.I.R., the Complainant immediately sent a copy of the same to the Opposite Party along with letter dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure C-7). Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party a number of times for payment of claim.

          The Complainant later received a letter dated 13.09.2011 from the Opposite Party wherein the Complainant was asked to clarify why there had been a delay of 237 days in informing the Police, as per the F.I.R. (Annexure C-8). The Complainant gave a detailed reply to this letter specifically giving details of intimation to the Police (Annexure C-9). However, the Complainant was surprised to receive a letter dated 05.12.2011 (Annexure C-10) from the Opposite Party wherein the claim of the Complainant had been repudiated on the simple ground that the F.I.R. had been lodged after 237 days of the theft of the Motorcycle, quoting the following condition: -

“In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.”        

          The Complainant has alleged that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be attributed to be a fault of the Complainant as the Police Officers had said that the F.I.R. would be lodged after due investigation of the case.  The Complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint, alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, harassment and mental torture, with a prayer that the Opposite Party be directed to honour the claim of the Complainant and pay Rs.41,000/- (sum assured as per Policy), along with interest and compensation, besides cost of litigation.

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 23.07.2012.

3.        Complainant led evidence in support of its contentions.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record.

5.        The case of the Complainant is that a genuine claim for theft of a motorcycle has been denied by the Opposite Party due to delay in lodging the F.I.R. The Complainant has placed on record a copy of the F.I.R. dated 12.11.2010 and fairly conceded that he had approached the Police station on 21.03.2010 and 19.09.2010 with written complaints. However, the F.I.R. was not lodged by the Police. Annexure C-2 is the complaint written by the Complainant to the Incharge, Police Station, Barbil. Annexure C-3 is an e-mail sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, wherein the following four documents have been enclosed: -

a)    F.I.R. letter copy on company letter head.

b)    Insurance Certificate copy.

c)    Registration certificate copy.

d)    Certificate of Registration.

          Annexure C-4 is letter dated 19.09.2012, addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Barbil Police Station, duly stamped by the Police Station, regarding missing Bike No. OR-09K-7203. The actual F.I.R. and related papers have been placed on record at Annexure C-5 to C-10 respectively.  

6.        The claim of the Complainant has been denied by the Opposite Party because of delay in lodging of F.I.R. by 237 days. Taking into consideration Annexure C-2 to C-6, information of which was available with the Opposite Party, we do not think that the stand taken by the Opposite Party for denial of the insurance claim is valid and justified. The genuine claim of the Complainant for the loss of the vehicle should be paid by the Opposite Party.

7.        As Opposite Party has failed to contest the claim of the Complainant, all the averments of the Complainant go unrebutted.

8.        The complaint is accordingly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to:-

[a]  Make payment of Rs.41,000/- as per the IDV of the vehicle in the policy at Annexure C-1.

[b]  Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation.

9.        This amount be paid by the Opposite Party within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which Opposite Party shall also be additionally liable for an interest @12% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of this order, till the date of payment, besides the cost of litigation.  

10.       The Complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages for causing great harassment and mental torture by the act of the Opposite Party. However, in our opinion, we cannot pass any such orders, especially in view of the fact that the Complainant is a Company and harassment can be to a natural person only and not to an unnatural person (company). Here we are fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as SIKKA PAPERS LIMITED VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777.

11.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28^th September, 2012.                                           

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

 MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER