DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 72
Instituted on: 21.02.2017
Decided on: 22.05.2017
Maninder Pal Kaushal son of Late Sh. Parsotam Lal, resident of H.No. 417, Ward No.10, Street No.5, Sardar Basti, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, above Hotel Hot Chop, Kaula Park Market, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
..Opposite party.
For the complainant : Shri Naveen Srivastava, Adv.
For Opp.party : Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Maninder Pal Kaushal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Op by getting insured his Hero Splendor motorcycle bearing registration number PB-13-AH-1206 for Rs.38,500/- vide insurance policy number 94325062 for the period from 5.10.2015 to 4.10.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.1289/-. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen on 19.11.2015 at about 4.00 PM when the complainant went to Bus stand Sangrur for inquiring about the status of bus after parking the motorcycle outside the bus stand by locking the same, but when he came back he found that the motorcycle had been stolen by some one and as such he immediately lodged DDR number 5109 dated 19.11.2015 with the PS City Sangrur about the theft of the motorcycle in question. The complainant also intimated the Op about the theft and handed over the photocopy of RC, original key of the motorcycle and copy of DDR to the Op. The OP appointed investigator for investigating the claim and assured that the claim will be settled shortly. Thereafter, the police of PS City Sangrur registered FIR number 359 dated 12.12.2015, who also carried out the investigation, but the motorcycle was not fund and thereafter the PS City police filed no trace report before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur and the copy of the report was also submitted to the OP, but despite that the claim was not settled. Lastly, the Op repudiated the claim of the complainant by stating that there is a delay of 24 days in registration of FIR and that there is also delay of four days in lodging the claim with the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.38,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle was stolen on 19.5.2017 and after receipt of the intimation dated 23.11.2015 regarding theft of the motorcycle in question, the Op company appointed Er. Vikas Gulati, independent surveyor and loss assessor, who visited the spot and submitted his report and after perusal of the report, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant intimated the OP after four days of incident and further intimated the police after 24 days as such, the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Lastly, it has been stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the Op and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of letter, Ex.C-4 copy of DDR, Ex.C-5 copy of FIR, Ex.C-6 copy of order dated 10.9.2016, Ex.C-7 copy of RC of motorcycle and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP-3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 affidavits and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his motorcycle in question with the OP. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 19.11.2015, of which DDR number 5109 dated 19.11.2015 Ex.C-4 was recorded and further FIR number 359 dated 12.12.2015 was recorded in PS City Sangrur. However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the late submission of the intimation about theft of the vehicle to the OP and late intimation of loss of motorcycle to the police.
6. Ex.C-2 is the copy of insurance policy, whereas Ex.C-4 is a copy of DDR lodged with the police of PS City Sangrur. In the present case, the repudiation of the claim has been done by the OP on the ground that notice was to be given to the OP immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage, whereas the complainant has intimated the OP after a delay of four days. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since the complainant was finding the vehicle here and there, and when he did not found the same, he lodged the DDR immediately with the police. Now, the question for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount or not. It is on the record that the complainant tried his best to find out the vehicle here and there for some times and ultimately on the same day i.e. on 19.11.2015, he intimated the police and lodged DDR number 5109 dated 19.11.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4 (taken by the complainant under RTI Act from the police) and further intimated the OP about the theft of the vehicle, which fact is also admitted by the OP in their written reply that they were intimated about four days late, but no such copy of intimation has been produced on record by the OP. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had to intimate the police and it is the police only who had to lodge the FIR at their own and in this respect, the complainant is unable to take any action to lodge the FIR. As such, it is proved on the record that the complainant intimated the police of PS City Sangrur immediately about the theft of the motorcycle in question. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 (HR), wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sukhram Kashyap versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA/13/272, decided on 11.4.2013 by the Chhattisgarh State Commission, wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) has been relied upon, wherein it has been held that the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.
7. The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.
8. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.38,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.02.2017 till realisation. We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. We also direct the complainant to execute the necessary documents, if any for transfer of the vehicle in question as required by the OP.
9. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
May 22, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
