Haryana

Karnal

CC/626/2019

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Moonak

29 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                           Complaint Case No.626/2019.

                                           Date of institution:12.09.2019.

                                           Date of decision:29.09.2021.

 

Jagtar Singh, aged 46 years, son of Sh. Ajit Singh, resident of Village Kertu, Distt. Shamli (U.P.) also resident of House No.980/934, Labh Singh Colony, near Char Chaman, Karnal (Adhar No.5723 5601 9137).

                     …Complainant.

                                   Versus

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Hafed Building, Sec.12, Karnal.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before:   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.   

        Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      

Argued by: Sh. S.S.Moonak, counsel for the complainant.   

                  Sh. Ashok Vohra, counsel for the OP.

             

(Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle (Platina) bearing registration No.HR-05/AH-7750 with the OP, vide policy bearing No.98413802, valid from 12.06.2016 to 11.07.2017.  On 02.12.2016 the said motor-cycle was stolen from the area of Peeth (Kertu Mandi) by some unknown person alongwith original documents. The complainant reported the matter to the police of Police Station, Jhinjhana, Shamli (U.P.) and FIR No.884/2016 under Section 379 IPC was registered in this regard.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 29.12.2017 on the false and flimsy grounds as “No claim”.  The said letter is wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint.

2.         On notice, OP appeared and filed written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered on merits and the same was not found payable due to the fact that the complainant has violated the term and condition no.1 of the policy. As per condition no.1 of the policy, in case of theft immediate intimation was required to be given by the insured to the Police but complainant has not given the intimation to the police authorities as such no FIR/DDR was lodged by the complainant about the alleged theft dated 02.12.2016. It is further pleaded that the complainant has parked the motorcycle in question alone at the roadside of Kertu Mandi as unattended illegally and carelessly without finding the proper place of parking of insured vehicle. It is further pleaded that on receiving the intimation about the theft of insured motorcycle, the OP assigned the investigation qua the theft in question to Shri Vikas Kumar and Associates investigator to investigate the theft. The investigator submitted his report and on that basis the claim of the complainant has been repudiated, vide speaking letter dated 29.12.2017 on the ground that the complainant has not given intimation to the Police regarding the theft of alleged motorcycle from village Kertu immediately after the occurrence of theft, which is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The delay in intimation with regard to theft of the vehicle to the concerned police station has prejudiced the recovery of the vehicle.  Hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.           Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.           Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of registration certificate C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of repudiation letter dated 29.12.2017 Ex.C3, copy of First Information Report Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 20.01.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.           On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Devendra Kumar Ex.OP1/A, copy of repudiation letter dated 29.12.2017 Ex.R1, copy of policy Ex.R2, copy of claim form Ex.R3, copy of application given by complainant Ex.R4, copy of investigation report Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 01.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.           We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated 29.12.2017 Ex.R1/Ex.C3 on the flimsy grounds. There is no delay to intimate the OP with regard to incident.  Moreover, the FIR was lodged on the very next day which proves that there is no delay on the part of the complainant.  With regard to non-submission of the untraced report learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in III(1993) CPJ page 313 (NC) titled as M/s. Delkon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 

8.           Per contra, learned counsel of the OP while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the vehicle of complainant was stolen on 02.12.2016, whereas the complainant gave the intimation to the insurance company after a delay of 9 days. The complainant failed to intimate the incident immediately to the insurance company. The insurer has deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Complainant neither informed to the police nor got lodged FIR with regard to the alleged incident.  Moreover, complainant left his vehicle as unattended. Learned counsel for OP further argued that complainant has failed to submit the untraced report in the present case. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated/closed as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and so, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated/closed by the OP, vide repudiation/closing letter Ex.R1 (Ex.C3) on the following grounds that:-

“The vehicle in question was stolen on 02.12.2016, for which FIR was not lodged.

Since there is violation of condition no.1 of policy, which categorically mandate that in case of theft, immediate intimation is required to be given by the insured to Police, which clearly has not done and accordingly, we constrained to repudiate the same.”

As such, the subject claim would fall outside the scope of the policy condition, therefore, closing the file as ‘No Claim’.

 

10.         In the present case vehicle in question was stolen on 02.12.2016 and complainant gave the intimation to the police on the very next day and in this regard the First Information Report Ex.C4 was got registered in Police Station Jhinijhana, Shamli (UP). Hence there is no delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. Generally, the owner/Driver of the vehicle first tries to search the vehicle at his own level, but when he fails to trace out the same, the matter is reported to the police. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the police does not register the FIR immediately after getting information of theft of any vehicle, either the complainant is asked to trace out the vehicle at his own level or efforts are made by the police for searching the vehicle, but when the vehicle is not traced out, then only the FIR is registered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR.

11.         During the course of arguments learned counsel for OP has also taken a plea that there is delay of nine days in intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question by the complainant, has no force. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the case titled as Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and anr. in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.11 of the said judgment, that it is a common knowledge that a person who has lost his vehicle may not straightway 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 holder in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We also placed reliance upon the judgment in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co. in Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.20 of the said judgment has held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. The similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dharamnder Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others in civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 date of decision 13.09.2021

12.         The other plea taken by the OP, is that the vehicle was left unattended at the time of incident. In this regard, OP has failed to produce any cogent evidence that the vehicle was left unattended by the complainant.  Hence, plea taken by the OP is having no force.

13.         The last plea has taken by the OP is that the untraced report has not been submitted by the complainant.  In this regard learned counsel for complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Delkon (India) Pvt. Ltd.’ case (supra) wherein it is held that insured has lodged the FIRs with the police in time and either the police have furnished report that the theft was undetectable or furnished no report even after the elapse of reasonable time. The complainant cannot be denied his claim under the policy of insurance on the ground that the final Police report was not forthcoming.” Hence this plea taken by the OP is having no force.

14.         Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that acts of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved genuine one. 

15.         As per insurance policy Ex.C2, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.24,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith compensation and litigation expenses etc.

16.         Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.24,000/- insured declared value (IDV)  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation/closing of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to get all the formalities completed with regard to transfer of vehicle as and when the OP desire. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.09.2021.

 

 

                                                             

                                                President,

                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                            Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

      

                     (Vineet Kaushik)           

                        Member