Haryana

Karnal

CC/322/2019

Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Om Parkash Kashyap

22 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.322 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.10.06.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 22.07.2019

 

Ram age about 40 years son of Shri Chander Bhan, resident of House No.96, Gali no.1, Moti Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. office IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager.

2.     The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office c/o Hafed District office, SCO 19,20 Ground floor, Part no.1 Sector-12, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                      …..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: Shri O.P. Kashyap counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OPs.

 

                (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 parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle/motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor plus bearing Regn. No.HR-05-V-3018 from OPs, vide policy no.50557954, valid from 13.02.2017 to 12.02.2018. On 30.11.2017 at about 1.30 p.m. the complainant parked his vehicle outside of his house and the same has been stolen by some unknown person. The complainant tried his best to trace out the vehicle but all in vain and immediately the complainant informed to the police and the concerned police has circulate the message in this regard to the control room, Karnal to all the Police Station/ Police Posts Karnal through V.T. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to the Station House Officer Police Station City Karnal regarding the theft of his vehicle and the concerned police lodged the FIR no.1238 dated 04.12.2017, under section 379 of I.P.C. in Police Station City, Karnal. The Police investigated the matter but finally on 06.12.2018 the concerned police submitted the untraced report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal. In the meantime, complainant sent the intimation regarding the theft of his vehicle to the OPs. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several time for settlement of the claim but OPs failed to settle the claim and lastly OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 26.04.2018 on the ground that the FIR was lodged after the delay of four days and the intimation was given to the OPs on 31.01.2018 i.e. after the delay of about 62 days and hence the claim would fall outside the scope of the policy condition and closed the file of complainant as, ‘No Claim’. After the incident complainant informed to the OPs as well as to the police authority and there is no delay in informing the OPs and to the police on the part of the complainant and the OPs have wrongly and illegally closed the claim of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts. It is further pleaded that after getting intimation regarding the theft of motorcycle of complainant, OP appointed investigator Mr. Sachin Gulati to investigate into the matter. The report of the said investigator was received and after perusal of same, it has been transpired that vehicle was stolen on 30.11.2017, for which FIR was lodged on 04.12.2017 i.e. after delay of four days and intimation to OPs was given on 31.01.2018 i.e. after delay of about 62 years. The delay in intimation of theft to company as well as police authorities has prejudiced possibilities of recovery of the stolen vehicle. This also constitutes serious breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, which states that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any loss and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Failure of the complainant to lodge the FIR immediately after the alleged theft and thereafter, immediately intimate the company is valid reason for repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the company, thus the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs as per terms and conditions no.1 of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, claim repudiation letter Ex.C1, Aadhar card Ex.C2, driving licence Ex.C3, copy of Registration Certificate Ex.C4, insurance policy Ex.C5, application to SHO Ex.C6, copy of FIR Ex.C7, report of 173Cr.P.C. Ex.C8, untraced report Ex.C9 and untraced order Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 17.01.2020 by suffering separate statement.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence insurance policy Ex.R1, investigation Report Ex.R2, repudiation letter dated 26.04.2018 Ex.R3, copy of FIR Ex.R4, claim details Ex.R5 and statement of insured Ex.R6 and closed the evidence on 07.04.2021.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is registered owner of motorcycle make Hero Honda, Splendor Plus bearing registration No.HR05V-3018, Model 2008 and the same was got insured with the OP vide policy No.50557954. On 30.11.2017, at about 01:30 PM, complainant parked his vehicle outside of his house and the same was stolen by an unknown person. He further argued that vehicle in question was stolen on 30.11.2017 and intimation to the police has been given by the complainant on the same day but police lodge the FIR after four days i.e. on 04.12.2017. After investigating the matter, police submitted untrace report before learned Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal which was accepted and sent to the quarter concerned. The complainant also informed the OPs with regard to the said theft on the very next day. Thereafter, several requests were made to the OPs to release the claim but OPs sent a letter dated 26.04.2018 repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR as well as for delay in intimating the OPs, which is totally illegal. Hence, prayed for allowing the present complaint. Learned counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Versus Charan Dass (NCDRC) in Revision Petition no.1324 of 2012, date of decision 01.08.2012; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Om Parkash Gupta & Anr. (NCDRC) in Revision Petition no.4066 of 2008, date of decision 03.12.2008 and Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Versus Manoj 2014(3) CLT page 447 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana.

7.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OPs argued that on receiving the intimation regarding theft, OPs appointed an investigator, namely Mr. Sachin Gulati to investigate the matter. On receiving the report of investigator, it has been transpired that vehicle in question was stolen on 30.11.2017, FIR was lodged on 04.12.2017 i.e. after delay of 4 days and intimation to OPs was given on 31.01.2018 i.e. after delay of about 62 days. The delay in intimation of theft to company as well as police has prejudiced possibilities of recovery of stolen vehicle as well as breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned counsel of OPs placed reliance upon the case titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Niraj Singh in appeal no.195/2011 date of decision 20.10.2011 of Hon’ble State Commission Chhattisgarh.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant was the owner of vehicle in question and the said vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy but the claim of the complainant had been repudiated by the OPs, vide letter Ex.R3/Ex.C1 dated 26.04.2018 on the following ground:-

“We have deputed Mr.Sachin Gulati to investigate into the loss. The report of the said investigator has been received and after perusal of same. It has been transpired that vehicle was stolen on 30.11.2017, for which FIR was lodged on 04.12.2017 i.e. after delay of about 4 days intimation was given to ITGI on 31.01.2018 i.e. after delay of about 62 days. 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 ITGI, which clearly has not done by your goodself, hence, claim lodged by your goodself is not tenable and accordingly we are constrained to repudiate the same.”

 

9.             In the present case vehicle in question was stolen on 30.11.2017 and as per the version of complainant, he gave an intimation to the police on the same day but police lodged the FIR after four day i.e. on 04.12.2017. 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. Police submitted untraced report Ex.C9, which was accepted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide order dated 06.12.2018, the copy of which is Ex.C10. It is not the case of the OPs that the motorcycle of the complainant was not stolen and the story of theft put forth in the FIR was false. Thus, the claim of the complainant regarding theft of the motorcycle was genuine and never disputed by the OPs. Hence, there is no fault on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. The plea taken by the OPs that there is delay in intimation regarding 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.  

10.           No other point urged by the learned counsel for OPs.

11.           Keeping in view the ratio of the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OPs while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  

12.           The authority relied upon by the OPs is not applicable to the facts of the present complaint.

13.           As per insurance policy Ex.C5, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.23,500/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.23,500/- insured amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs 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 OPs desire. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 22.07.2021

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)            

                     Member