Haryana

StateCommission

A/87/2016

VIKRAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SHITAL BINDAL

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.87 of 2016

Date of Institution: 28.01.2016                                                              Date of Decision: 28.10.2016

 

Vikram Singh aged about 45 years S/o Sh.Prem Singh R/o village Deodhar, Tehsil Chhachhauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. IFFCO complex, Plot No.2 (B & C) Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-16—18 through its Manager.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., IFFCO  House, 3^rd Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through General Manager or Manager.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Shital Bindal, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                             Shri Ankur Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by the complainant that he got insured his tractor bearing registration No. HR-02T-5219 with the opposite parties (O.Ps.) for Rs.2,27,000/- valid from 12.08.2008 to 11.08.2009.  The vehicle was stolen on 27.04.2009. He visited the police station, Khizrabad on 27.04.2009 to register the case of theft, but, police official neither registered nor lodged FIR.  He sent an application to Chief Minister Haryana and Superintendent of police, Yamuna Nagar for registeration of case. Thereafter police officials registered FIR No.115 dated 09.08.2009.  Claim was submitted with the O.Ps, but, they did not pay any amount and repudiated the same vide letter dated 30.03.2010 on the ground that theft took place on 27.04.2009 and FIR was lodged on 09.08.2009 and intimation of occurrence was given to them on 16.08.2009.  Resultantly he filed this complaint.  He be given Rs.1,90,000/- besides compensation qua mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and  litigation expenses etc.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that tractor in question was stolen on 27.04.2009 and intimation was given to it on 16.08.2009 i.e. after a gap of three months and 17 days of alleged theft.  FIR was got registered on 09.08.2009 i.e. after three months and 12 days of theft.  Thus, he violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so his claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 30.03.2010.  Objections about maintainability, concealing material facts, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After going through the evidence available on the file and hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes  Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 07.09.2015.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that  just after theft on 27.04.2009, he visited P.S.Khizerabad to register case, but, instead of lodging FIR, there and then the same was registered on 09.08.2009.   When vehicle was not found, he approached O.Ps., but his claim was repudiated without any reasonable ground.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  It appears that story of theft of vehicle has been concocted just to get compensation.  As per version of complainant, if his report was not lodged at police station he could have approached the senior officers.  He could have sent registered letter etc. about not registering F.I.R. Application Annexure A-3 is also dated 01.08.2009 i.e. after fourteen days, but, in complaint it is alleged that he moved application to Chief Minister Haryana and S.P.Yamuna Nagar. Thus there is delay of three months in lodging F.I.R. Intimation regarding theft was given to the insurance company on 16.08.2009 and there is delay of more than three months in intimation.  As per terms and conditions of policy he was supposed to inform immediately. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission have opined about ‘immediately’ and when the matter should be reported to the insurance company.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8 that word ‘immediately’ means the information is to be given to them without any loss of time. Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the word ‘immediately’ giving reference of so many dictionaries.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has also opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal,  (supra) that terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or substracted from the same.  Hon’ble National Commission also opined in NIA Vs.Trilochan  Jane, first appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009, Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 518 2013 (3) that if there is inordinate delay in giving information to the company, without any explanation, the  claim can be repudiated by the company.  In Satpal case (supra) there was 30 days delay in information given to the insurance company and in the present case also there is delay of three months and 19 days. 

8.      The claimant has also miserably failed to explain the delay of more than three months in lodging FIR and cannot be ignored.

Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3719 of 2011 Siraj Khan vs. Mahindra Finance Ltd. and others, decided on 03.07.2012 wherein  it is opined as under:-

“5.     It emerged from perusal of the facts of the case and the documents placed on record that there was inordinate delay in informing the police as well as the opposite parties about the alleged incident. Nothing has been produced before us to counter this important aspect. The State Commission following the order of the National Commission in Appeal No.321 of 2005 in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that time is of essence in such cases and delay is in lodging the FIR and sending intimation about theft to the insurer would be fatal to the recovery of the insured vehicle and hence repudiation of the claim on this ground would be justified. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.”

9.      Neither the appellant lodged FIR in time nor he gave information to insurance company.  If police was not registering case, the complainant could have informed insurance company there and then.  Lodging of FIR is not a condition precedent for giving information to insurance company about theft. Complainant has not placed any evidence on the file showing that he ever approached insurance company in time.  Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that he was not entitled for compensation and insurance company rightly repudiated his claim.   The finding of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

October 28^th, 2016      Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.