Haryana

Ambala

CC/189/2017

Sanjay - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio Gen Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Kashyap

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  189 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  12.06.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  17.07.2018

 

 

Sanjay S/o Sh. Molu Ram, R/o #502, Saini/Gadariya Mohalla, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

    ……. Complainant.

 

1.       IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.  through its Office-in-charge, Branch Office 6330, 2^nd Floor, above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohall, Ambala Cantt-133001

2.       Office-In-Charge, Customer Care Service-North, IFFCO House, 3^rd Floor, Nehru House, New Delhi-110019

 

….…. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                  

                            

Present:       Sh. Sandeep Kashyap,  counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Mahinder Bindal, Advocate for OPs.  

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of Motor Cycle make Hero Motorcops Ltd. Model  Splander+, model 2014 bearing registration no.HR-71D-8691. The said motor Cycle was compressively insured with the respondents vide insurance policy no. 92917281 affective from 22.06.2015 to midnight of 21.06.2016 against the payment of annual premium of Rs. 1141.10/-. The above said motor cycle was stolen on 29.12.2015 during  the period from 11 AM to 8AM from the parking lot of the emergency ward of the MM Medical College & Hospital, Mullana(Ambala), where the father of the complainant was admitted for his treatment. That the brother of the complainant Mr. Rinku Ram had gone there on the above said motor cycle on 29.12.2015 at about 11 AM to see his ailing father and properly parked and locked the said motor cycle at the parking lot of the emergency ward of the said Hospital, That when the brother of the complainant came out from the hospital at about 8P.M. on the day and found that the said motor cycle was not there where it was parked and locked and could not be traced out in spite of vigorous search here and there. Thereafter, the police station Mullana was approached for the registration of FIR of the theft of the above said motor cycle, but the policy of the police station Mullana did not registered FIR  and put off the matter by saying to wait for some time/ days as the said motor cycle might be traced out. Thereafter the brother of the complainant give an application to the SDO Civil, Barara on 05.01.2016 and the same was forwarded the same to ACP, Barara and thereafter the same was forwarded by the ACP, Barara to the SHO of police station Mullana to act as per law and procedure. Thereafter the police of the police station Mullana registered a FIR no.13 dated 30.01.2016 under section 379 of IPC for the theft of the above said motor cycle. Due immediate intimation of the theft of the above said motor cycle  was given to the Ops by complainant and after about two months a surveyor from the Ops came to the complainant and noted down the date of the incident of theft and also  took both the keys of the motor-cycle, copy of RC, insurance cover, FIR and also took the signature of the applicant on some blank forms and papers and verified about the theft from the site of the theft. Thereafter the Ops again demanded some documents from the complainant vide letter dated 27.04.2016 which was dually complied with and the complainant submitted the same again to the OP No.2 under speed post on 25.05.2016, but strangely enough till date the claim has not been settled which clearly amount to gross negligence and grave deficiency in service on part of the Ops. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 09.02.2017 through  his counsel.  Hence, the present complaint.                                                                                                 

 2.               Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false & frivolous, no cause of action, not come present with clean hands and no jurisdiction. On merits, learned counsel for the OPs has been submitted that as a matter of fact the reported claim no.36487977 of the complainant on receipt of the intimation on 15.01.2016 was duly entertained in due course without going into the aspect of its maintainability  due to late intimation to the Ops inspite of the fact that the present claim was out rightly liable to be discarded due to late intimation of claim by the insured i.e. after 17 crucial days of the alleged loss to the insurance company against law and in violation of the Condition no.1 of the Insurance Policy but even than the said claim was entertained without discrimination and the complainant was asked to give explanation about late intimation. One investigator namely Sh. R.N.Sharma was appointed to investigate the matter and to give his fact finding report about the loss and other factors related to this case. After going through the papers submitted  by the insured and after scrutinizing  and elaborating the whole facts, records and the evidence,  it was also found and established  that the complainant intimated the loss in question to police on 30.01.2016 as per FIR lodged by the complainant vide FIR No.0013 dated 30.01.2016 meaning thereby  that the complainant informed the police too about the alleged theft loss after a very important and crucial delay o f32 days  and thereafter finding the complainant unable to explain  the delay in both lodging of the FIR and intimation to the Ops, the said reported claim was rightly and legally held not maintainable and payable due to late intimation to both police and insurance company and was accordingly repudiated  by the competent authority. The complainant was duly informed about the fate of his claim vide letter dated 25.07.2016. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-9 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-7 and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant had made a statement that he has no objection if his present complaint is decided by allowing the complainant the amount of claim on sub standard basis i.e. 75% of the IDV. He does not claim any interest or cost.

On the other hand, counsel for the Ops have prayed for adjourning the case and they  want to seek consent of the company and  but company has not given the consent for paying 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle in question. The counsel for the complainant has drew our attention towards judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 CTJ 680 (SC) (CP), the Apex Court was pleased to hold :-

“In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on ‘non-standard’ basis.  The Insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in to in case of loss of vehicle due to theft”.

 

6.                Keeping in view of the totality of the fact & circumstances of the present case and law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court case titled National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Kandelwal IV (2008) CPJ 1 (S.C), it would be appropriate that if we allow the present complaint by giving 75% of the insured amount to the complainant on non-standard basis. Hence,  the present  complaint is hereby partly allowed with no order as to 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 Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the 75% of Insured Declared Value of motor cycle which comes to Rs.26,250/- within stipulated period after receiving the copy of order failing which OPs will pay the interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till its realization .

                   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:17.07.2018                                   

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

      Member                                                   President