DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 27 of 31.1.2017
Decided on: 7.5.2018
Gurjeet Singh aged 40 years s/o Sh.Ronak Singh, resident of village, Changera Post office, Kheri Gurna, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 414, Veer Savakar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabh Devi, Mumbai 400025 through its Authorized/ Director.
2. Authorized Agent, ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance at Hero Corporate service(P) Ltd. Distribution at Banur 140 601 New Sale Tax Barrier, Banur Tehsil Rajpura District, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rampal Bathonia,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.1
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Gurjeet Singh complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that he got insured his vehicle having registration No.PB-11BQ-1354 with Op no.1 through OP no.2 for the period from 20.10.2015 till 19.10.2016 after paying Rs.1288/-.The said vehicle was stolen out side the premises of the Snower School at Banur, where the complainant went to attend the meeting. He lodged the FIR No.36 dated 23.3.2016 U/s 379 IPC at Police Station, Banur. He also gave the intimation with regard to the stolen vehicle to the OPs immediately and submitted all the required documents with them but no response was given by them. He got the report from Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau, regarding non traceability of the vehicle. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 20.9.2016 upon the OPs but to no effect. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to the claim amount of Rs.36086/- in double ; to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of theft till its realization.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs failed to appear despite service and were accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.4.2017. However, by filing an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab Chandigarh , the OP1 got setaside the exparte proceedings passed against it vide order dated 28.4.2017 and filed the written version before this Forum. Preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable ; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the complainant got insured his vehicle through Choudhary Enterprises, Banur for the period from 20.10.2015 to 19.10.2016, for an amount of Rs.36086/-, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy which were duly supplied to him. It is further stated that vehicle in question was stolen on 5.12.2015 and intimation with regard to the theft of the vehicle was given to the OP on 14.12.2016 i.e. with a delay of 9 days and FIR was lodged on 23.3.2016 with a delay of 109 . Thereafter matter was got investigated. During the investigation, the complainant gave the statement, that he submitted the application to the police on the same day but failed to produce any acknowledgment/receipt in this regard. Letters dated 5.5.2016 & 20.5.2016 were written to the complainant for giving the explanation regarding the delay in intimation to the OPs as well as to the police but the complainant did not reply the said letters and his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 25.7.2016.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of Op no.1. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Exs.CA & CB, affidavits of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C19 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Aman Singh, authorized signatory alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and requests for adjournment for producing more documents. But inspite of granting opportunities it failed to produce more documents and the evidence of Op no.1 was closed by order.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant was duly insured with the ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 20.10.2015 to 19.10.2016, vide policy document Ex.C2. The said vehicle was stolen on 5.12.2015. Accordingly the complainant lodged the claim with the OP no.1, which was repudiated on the ground of delay in intimation about the theft of the vehicle. The ld. counsel for the OP no.1 has vehemently argued that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because the vehicle in question was allegedly stolen on 5.12.2015 and the intimation to OP no.1 in this regard was given on 14.12.2015 i.e. with a delay of 9 days. FIR was also lodged on 23.3.2016 i.e. with a delay of 109 days from the date of occurrence of the incidence. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the intimation to the police about the theft of the vehicle in question was given on 5.12.2015 itself, as is evident from copy of application Ex.C19. He had also informed the insurance company immediately after the theft of the vehicle. As such there is no delay in intimating the police as well as to the insurance company.He further argued that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim merely on the ground of delay.
7. From the copy of application Ex.C19, it is evident that the complainant has informed the police about the theft of his vehicle on 5.12.2015.The said document has not been rebutted. From the said application, it is evident that the complainant has informed the police authorities immediately after the theft of his vehicle. If for the arguments sake, we believe the contention of OP No.1 that there was delay of 9 days in giving intimation to it, even then OP no.1 cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), wherein it has been held that the decision of the insurer to reject claim has to be based on valid grounds-rejection of the claim on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of the policy in the insurance industry. If reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claim, which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. The OP No.1 thus was not justified in repudiating the claim and is liable to indemnify the complainant, for the loss suffered by him. In the copy of insurance document,Ex.C2, the IDV of the impugned vehicle has been found mentioned as Rs.36086/- .Thus, the OP no.1 is liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.36086/-. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. Since the OP No.2, being a agent has acted for and on behalf of OP no.1 therefore, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed against OP No.2 is dismissed and the same is allowed against OP No.1 The OP No.1 is directed in the following manner:-
- To pay Rs.36086/- i.e. the IDV of the vehicle in question as mentioned in the policy document,Ex.C2 alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 25.7.2016 till its realization;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation expenses.
The OP No.1 is further directed to comply the said order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:7.5.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
