Haryana

Ambala

CC/343/2018

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO Tokio Gen Inss Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Sharma

03 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  343 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   15.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   03.09.2019.

 

Ashok Kumar, aged about 31 years s/o Shri Rajinder Kumar, r/o village Batoura, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                                                                 …...Complainant.                                                          Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Service to be effected at Branch Office bearing No.6330, 2^nd Floor, above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt (Haryana), through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

               ..…. Opposite Party.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri R.K. Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following direction to it:-

1. To pay the insured amount of Rs.33,000/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of theft of motorcycle i.e. 22.11.2017, till its payment to the complainant.  
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay cost of Rs.11,000/-.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-04E-6499, Engine No.HA10EJD9J03423, Chassis No.MBLHA10AMD9J02602, Model 2013. The said motorcycle was got insured with the OP for an amount of Rs.33,000/- w.e.f. 19.11.2017 to 18.11.2018 vide insurance policy issued on 16.11.2017. On 22.11.2017 at about 03:00 PM, he had gone to Surya Palace, Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala to attend a marriage function and parked his motorcycle at parking place outside the said Palace. When he came out, he saw that his motorcycle was missing from the parking place. He tried his best to locate the motorcycle, but could not trace. On 23.11.2017, he got lodged an FIR bearing No.391 dated 23.11.2017 u/s 379 of IPC, to the PS Naraingarh against unknown person. He also lodged his claim for the loss of motorcycle with the OP by submitting all the relevant documents, but it kept lingering on the payment of the insurance claim by making excuses on one pretext or the other. Lastly, the OP refused his legal claim as “No Claim” vide letter dated 24.02.2018. The OP by not paying his genuine claim, has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared through counsel and has filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that it is the duty of the insured to inform to the insurer in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and the same has duly been incorporated in the policy conditions issued to the public at large. The OP and the complainant are bound to follow the terms & conditions of the policy issued for insuring the motorcycle. The complainant for the first time informed the OP on 21.12.2017 i.e. after 29 days regarding the theft of motorcycle in question, which took place on 22.11.2017. After receiving the information, the OP appointed a surveyor who submitted his report dated 07.01.2018. The complainant lodged an FIR no.391 dated 23.11.2017 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Naraingarh. Till date, untrace report has not been produced or accepted by the Court of JMIC. The complainant himself violated the terms & conditions of the policy, as such, no claim is payable to him. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP and the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Sourabh Singh, Vice Pr. of OP company as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the case laws referred by the ld. counsel for the OP.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that duly insured motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on 22.11.2017. The complainant got registered an FIR with the police and also lodged the claim with the OP and also submitted all the relevant documents, but the OP vide letter dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure C5/OP-11) refused to pay the claim amount and treated his claim as “No Claim”.

6.                Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 22.11.2017, but intimation was given by the complainant to the OP on 21.12.2017 i.e. after a delay of 29 days from the date of occurrence of the incident. Moreover, untrace report duly accepted by the Court of JMIC, has not been produced. There is breach of terms & conditions of the policy and no amount is payable to the complainant. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the OP has placed reliance on the cases, titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harbhajan Khaira, IV (2016) CPJ 150 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kumar Singh & Anr., Revision Petition No.1054 of 2016 (NC) and P. Khamar Pasha Vs. BM, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision Petition No.724 of 2018 (NC).

7.                From the perusal of policy document dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure C-2/OP-12), it is evident that the motorcycle in question was duly insured with the OP for Rs.33,000/-, for the period from 19.11.2017 to 18.11.2018. While going through the FIR dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure C-3), it is revealed that the said motorcycle was stolen on 22.11.2017 from the outside parking place of Surya Marriage Palace, Naraingarh. However, the OP vide letter dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure C5/OP-11), refused to pay the claim amount on the ground that intimation of theft was given to it, after a delay of more than 29 days from the date of occurrence of the incident. It may be stated here that in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another, Vol IV 2017 CPJ-10 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that condition regarding delay shall not be shelter to repudiate insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. Even the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has also issued guidelines to the insurance companies that “The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimating or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and instructions of IRDA, it would not be fair and reasonable on the part of the OP to reject the genuine claim, which had already been verified and found to be correct. It is not out of place to mention here that the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the OP is not applicable to the present case. Since the motorcycle in question was insured for Rs.33,000/-, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount on completion of all the requisite formalities. The OP has pleaded that the untraced report has not been furnished by the complainant. The complainant has neither produced any untraced report on the case file nor has placed any document to show that he had furnished the untraced report with the OP. Taking all these facts into consideration, we dispose of the present complaint and direct the complainant to submit the untraced report duly accepted by the competent Court of law, with the OP and also complete all the requisite formalities to get the claim amount. The OP is also directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant within 30 days, after doing the needful by the complainant. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record-Room.

Announced on: 03.09.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President