Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/233/2018

Swaran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/233/2018
Date of Institution	:	23/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	28/03/2019

 

Swaran Singh son of Shri Ajmer Singh, Resident of Village Kalauli, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

The Manager, IFFCO TOKO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector 28-A, 3^rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Ankur Gupta, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant got his Hero Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.PB11-BW0285 got insured with the Opposite Party vide Policy Annexure C-1, valid from 15.11.2016 to 14.11.2017. On 05.09.2017, the insured vehicle was stolen while it was parked in the Kachcha parking adjoining to District Court Building, Sector 43, Chandigarh. Due intimation about the loss was given to the Police, as well as to the Opposite Party. Eventually, the police registered FIR dated 19.09.2017 (Annexure C-2). In the due course, non-traceable certificate was also issued by the Police authorities on 21.12.2017. The Opposite Party was provided all the required documents to process the claim. However, to the astonishment of the Complainant, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 26.4.2018 repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground of delayed lodgment of FIR and intimation. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant was himself liable for non-payment of his claim on account of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The vehicle was stolen on 05.09.2017 and an FIR regarding the same was lodged on 19.09.2017 i.e. after a delay of 14 days. Also, the intimation regarding the theft was given to the answering Opposite Party on 31.10.2017 i.e. after a delay of 56 days. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record along with the written submissions and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the vehicle in question was insured from 15.11.2016 to 14.11.2017 by the OP-Insurance Company. It is also not disputed before us that during the currency of the policy, the insured vehicle was stolen on 05.09.2017 and FIR (Annexure C-2) was registered on 19.09.2017. Annexure C-3 is the letter issued by the Surveyor to the Complainant asking/ demanding certain documents. Further, Annexure C-4 is the Non-Traceable certificate of the vehicle in question dated 21.12.2017. Annexures C-5, C-6 and C-9 are the various letters written by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant for want of documents. Finally, Annexure C-11 is the letter of the Complainant dated 24.04.2018 to the Opposite Party mentioning the reason of delay in informing the issue of theft to them along with submission of Form-24 R.C. Finally, vide Annexure C-12 dated 26.04.2018, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party with mention of violation of Condition No.1 of the Policy according to which it is mandatory that in case of theft immediate intimation is required to be given by the insured to the insurer, which has not been done by the Complainant. Hence, the claim of the Complainant being not tenable was repudiated by the OP-Insurance Company.  
8.         A meticulous perusal of the file reveals that during the currency of the policy the motorcycle of the Complainant was stolen and due intimation of the loss was given to the police and an FIR was registered though few days late. Furthermore, the Non-Traceable Certificate was issued by the Police Authorities on 21.12.2017 only. In support of his claim, the Complainant has placed his reliance on the judgment dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017 titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another. The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“11.  It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. 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. 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. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. 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.”

9.         Undoubtedly, the Complainant paid the premium to the OP-Insurance Company and after receiving the full premium the Opposite Party cannot deny the claim just for the unavoidable delay on the part of the Complainant to lodge the FIR and the claim. A perusal of Annexure                  C-11 shows that the Complainant had even explained that he is not aware about the technicalities of law and have prayed that even if there is any delay same should be condoned. It is important to note that a person who is already suffering the loss of his motorcycle purchased with his hard earned money, the delay in reporting the insurance authorities cannot be intentional or willful, but was beyond the control of the Complainant who is an agriculturist. We are of the opinion that the claim lodged by the Complainant is genuine and hence he is entitled for the relief claimed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. (supra).    
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party  is directed as under:-

1. To pay the IDV of Rs.42,000/- to the Complainant, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 26.04.2018, till realization.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and physical & mental harassment caused to him.

(iii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from the date of repudiation i.e. 26.04.2018, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [iii].  
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/03/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”