Haryana

Ambala

CC/386/2016

Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio Gen Inss - Opp.Party(s)

Jai Pal Chauhan

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No.   386 of 2016

                                                        Date of instt:     19.10.2016

                                                        Date of decision: 16.02.2018

 

Partap Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Uday Singh resident of House No.106, Jaggi Colony, Phase-3, Ambala City.

                                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- bearing No.6330, 2^nd Floor Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) through its Branch Manager/authorized signatory.

                                                                         …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                   

                   SH. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present: -    Sh. JPS Chauhan, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. M.Bindal, counsel for Op.

 

Order

 

                                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of a Hero Honda Dream Neo Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. HR01-AH-7228 and same was insured with OP for the period from 29.09.2015 to 28.09.2016 and the complainant had paid annual payment of Rs.1137.15 as premium thereof.  During the intervening night of 24/25.10.2015, the complainant kept the aforesaid motor cycle parked in the courtyard of his house but it was not found there in the morning. He searched here and there and tried level best to trace out the same but to no avail. He also got reported the matter with police station Baldev Nagar on 02.11.2015 under Section 379 IPC against unknown person. Further averred that the complainant then made claim to the OP and also submitted all the required documents but the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The untraced report submitted by the police has already been consigned to the record room vide order dated 30.05.2016 of learned JMIC, Ambala. The complainant got served legal notice upon the OP to make the payment but all fell on deaf ears. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C10.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability and concealment of material facts etc. The complainant himself is responsible for the non-payment of his claim with regard to alleged theft loss of motor cycle. The claim was reported by the complainant, therefore, surveyor was appointed and the said report had submitted his report dated 07.02.2016.  The OP had requested the complainant to provide non traceable   report and to explain the delay in intimation to police and lodging of FIR vide letters dated 24.02.2016, 15.03.2016, 25.03.2016 & 13.04.2016 but all in vain. There was delayed intimation of one month and even the police was also intimated about 8 days later after the accident. The insurance company has rightly closed the claim being No Claim on 26.04.2016. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

4.                In the present case, motor-cycle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party for the period from 29.09.2015 to 28.09.2016 as per Annexure C-3 and the motor-cycle of the complainant in question was stolen in the intervening night of 24.10.2015/25.10.2015 but the FIR was registered regarding the theft of vehicle on 02.11.2015 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 8 days as per Annexure C-2 and as per the version of the OP the theft of  motor-cycle was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party on 26.11.2015 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 34 days as per Annexure R-8. It is the sole fault on the part of the complainant and thus as per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant deserves “NO CLAIM” on his ground. On the above said ground, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

5.                In the present case the vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown persons and regarding this untraced report submitted by the police before the court has already been accepted and consigned to the record room vide order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure C1). The sole ground of the OP is that there is   inordinate delay of 8 days in lodging the FIR besides 34 days of delayed intimation to the OP which is violation of condition No.1 of the policy. The vehicle in question is said to have been stolen when the same was parked in the courtyard of the complainant and this fact has also been mentioned in the report lodged with the police. It is common knowledge that a person who got lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation.  However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. It is a settled principle of law that the decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims 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 claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act. Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs. RAMCHARAN DHOBI decided on 19.01.2017 in REVISION PETITION NO. 964 OF 2015 has held as under:

16.    On the other hand, there is also some weight in the assertion of the petitioner insurance company that the condition no.1 of the policy provides that the notice/information should be given immediately to the insurance company in writing, whereas no notice has been given to the insurance company within the reasonable period of time. However, all the insurance company are bound to observe the guidelines issued by  IRDA. As per IRDA Circular dated 20.9.2011 which has already been mentioned above, no genuine claim should be  rejected on the technical ground of delay. However, we must distinguish between those informing the damage/loss in time to the insurance company as per the terms and conditions and those who do not comply completely with the terms and conditions of the policy. Prima facie, the claims of those who do not comply with the terms and conditions of the policy may be rejected as violation of terms and conditions of the policy, however, directions of IRDA vide Circular No.IRDA/HLTH/MIS/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.9.2011 provide for non-rejection of genuine cases even though there is some violation in complying with the terms and conditions of the policy in certain cases, like delay in informing the insurance company etc. Hence, taking the spirit of the IRDA Circular into account, we are of the view that the insurance claim of the complainant for theft of his vehicle may be allowed but not to the tune of 100%, because there has been deficiency on the part of the complainant in informing the insurance company in writing and in time as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo  vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) has observed that the insurance claim may be allowed upto 75% in cases of breach of warranty/condition of policy.

6.                The authority cited (supra) by the complainant squarely covered case of the complainant. In view of above discussion, we have opinion that the present  complaint is allowed with costs on non-standard basis (75% of admissible claim as that is applicable only where the breach is insignificant & not maturity fundamentals to the loss and Op is directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay 75% of Insured Declared Value of Hero Honda Dream Neo which comes to Rs.28,500/- from the date of complaint alongwith interest @ 9% till its realization.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation charge, mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

 

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 16.02.2018                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

    

                                                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         Member

 

 

                                                                     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                        Member