DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 170 of 12-4-2012
Decided on 19-07-2012
Sanjiv Kansal son of Bhim Sain Kansal resident of Bathinda Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda Special power Attorney holder of Jasvir Kaur d/o Sh.Nar Singh resident of Street No.20 Partap Nagar, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 through its Managing Director.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 3039/A GT Road, Bathinda 151001 through its branch manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Sandeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). This complaint is filed by Sanjiv Kansal special power of attorney holder of Jasvir Kaur daughter of Nar Singh. The brief facts of the complaint are that Jasvir Kaur purchased one scooter Hero Honda pleasure make Honda bearing Chasis No.L00353, Engine No.L00433 from Kamal Enterprises, Bathinda with the assistance of Sheikh Farid Finvest Limited and after that Jasvir Kaur got registered the said vehicle with transport authority by completing all the requisite documents, the registration No. PB-03W-9384 was alloted to Jasvir Kaur. The complainant alleged that Jasvir Kaur insured the said vehicle with the opposite parties through opposite party No.2 vide policy No. Cert No.3005/12456490/10005/000 valid for the period from 17.12.2010 to 16.12.2011 by paying the premium of Rs.1198/-. The vehicle of Jasvir Kaur was stolen on dated 4.3.2011 and Jasvir Kaur informed the matter to the police on dated 16.3.2011 and an FIR No.37 dated 3.4.2011 under section 379 IPC was registered with PS Canal Colony, Bathinda. The complainant alleged that after completing all the formalities, Jasvir Kaur informed the opposite parties regarding the theft of the vehicle and lodged the insurance claim. Thereafter, Jasvir Kaur approached a number of times to the opposite party No.2 and requested it to admit her rightful claim and to make the payment of the vehicle as per the terms and condition of the policy. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties failed to comply with their own terms and conditions. During this period Jasvir Kaur has to go out station by hiring taxi from time to time and she was compelled to incur uncalled expenses to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the direction of this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim of said vehicle alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum has filed their joint written statement. The opposite parties pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material fact and documents from this Forum as the date of loss is 4.3.2011 and the FIR has been lodged with the police on 3.4.2011 i.e. with the delay of 30 days. As per the terms and condition of the policy, the complainant was bound to give immediate notice to the police regarding the theft. Jasvir Kaur has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The intimation regarding the loss was given to the opposite parties on 24.5.2011 i.e. after the delay of 81 days and therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 2.2.2012. The opposite parties have taken the support by law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court cited at 2009(4) CLT 313 (SC), 2009(2) CLT 15 (SC) and 2007 (2) CLT 186 (SC). The delay in intimation to the police and insurer debars the right of the insurer to investigate the matter and to make efforts to recover the lost vehicle and has given the reference of 2009(2) CLT 19 (SC). The vehicle was financed and hypothecated with Sheikh Farid Finvest Ltd. but the financier has not been impleaded as a party. The intimation to the police was given by the complainant on 3.4.2011 by way of affidavit. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 2.2.2012 on the account of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admittedly, the vehicle of Jasvir Kaur i.e. Hero Honda make Honda bearing Chasis No.L00353, Engine No.L00433 purchased from Kamal Enterprises, Bathinda financed from Sheikh Farid Finvest Limited, bearing registration No. PB-03W-9384 was insured with opposite parties through policy Cert No.3005/12456490/10005/000 valid for the period from 17.12.2010 to 16.12.2011. The complainant had paid the premium to the tune of Rs.1198/-.
The disputed facts amongst the parties are that the vehicle of Jasvir Kaur was stolen on dated 4.3.2011 and the intimation given to the police on dated 16.3.2011 and an FIR No.37 dated 3.4.2011 was registered with PS Canal Colony, Bathinda. Jasvir Kaur lodged her claim with the opposite parties, which was repudiated by them vide letter dated 2.2.2012 on the ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR and giving intimation to them.
6. The opposite parties submitted that the vehicle was stolen on 4.3.2011 whereas the FIR was lodged with police on 3.4.2011, there was delay of 30 days in giving the intimation to the police authorities. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant is bound to inform the insurance company immediately. Whereas the intimation regarding the loss/theft was given to the opposite parties on 24.5.2011 i.e. after the delay of 81 days.
7. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we have concluded that the complainant has failed to inform the police as well as the insurance company regarding the theft immediately thereby infringing the right of the insurer to investigate the matter and recover the stolen vehicle. The complainant has not given any reason that why the FIR with the police has been lodged after the delay of 30 days. He has also failed to give any reason for the delay in intimating the insurer. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the FIR was lodged on 3.4.2011 vide Ex.C5. The intimation to the insurance company was given on 24.5.2011 i.e. after the delay of 81 days. The claim intimation Ex.R5 shows that the claim has been filed on 10.6.2011. The complainant was bound to intimate the insurance companies and police authorities immediately after the occurrence whereas he has failed to do so. During this period the vehicle has been travelled for away or might have got dismantled which create difficulty in searching it. In this regard, the support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.321 of 2005, decided on 9.12.2009 in case titled New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane wherein it has been held:-
“In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly. The insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a vlauable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle”.
The Hon'ble National Commission while deciding the aforesaid case, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 that the terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported 'immediately'. In the context of a theft of the car, word 'immediately' has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay the compensation”.
The Hon'ble National Commission has also discussed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khundelwal reported in (2008) 11 SCC 256 wherein it has been observed that in the said case, the plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the vehicle though insured for personal use was being used as a taxi in violation of the terms of the policy. The plea raised by the Insurance Company was rejected and it was observed that in the case of theft breach of condition is not germane. In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation. The delay in lodging the FIR. After 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the Insurance Companies, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabaadi (scrap dealer).
In our view, the State Commission erred in holding that the respondent/complainant had reported the theft of the vehicle to the appellant-Insurance Company within a reasonable time. We are not going into the other question regarding violation of Condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy as we have non-suited the respondent/complainant on the first ground”.
8. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has intimated the loss to the Insurance Company as well as to the Police Authorities with inordinate delay and in such a long period, the vehicle in question could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabaadi (scrap dealer). Therefore, it is difficult to recover the vehicle in its original shape. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
19-07-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
