BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.210/15.
Date of instt.: 15.09.2015.
Date of Decision: 26.07.2016.
Angrej Singh, age 55 years, S/o Dariya Singh, r/o Village Balana, Tehsil Israna, Distt. Panipat.
……….Complainant.
Versus
Branch Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Opp. Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67/4749 with the Op vide policy bearing No.86025094 valid w.e.f. 09.12.2013 to 08.12.2014. It is alleged that on 21.12.2013, the above-said vehicle was stolen from near the house of driver namely Jitender, r/o Village Vessor, Tehsil Madlauda, Distt. Panipat. It is further alleged that the complainant got lodged the FIR bearing No.11 dt. 10.01.2014 under Section 379 IPC in P.S.Madlauda. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 19.08.2015. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the vehicle as per the version of complainant was stolen on 21.12.2013, whereas FIR No.11 dt. 10.01.2014 was got registered in P.S.Madlauda, Distt. Panipat after the delay of 20 days; that the information regarding the loss of vehicle was given to the answering Op on 11.01.2014 after the delay of 21 days; that after receiving the loss intimation on 11.01.2014, the answering Op immediately deputed the investigator, who submitted his report after sending his reminders dt. 21.07.2014 and 06.08.2014. After receiving the report of investigator, the letters dt. 29.10.2014, 20.01.2015, 03.02.2015 were sent to the insured and final reminder dt. 03.03.2015 asking the complainant/insured to send the mentioned documents to enable the insurance company to process the claim but the insured did not comply the request of insurance company and the insurance company repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 19.08.2015. The said repudiation of claim is legal and valid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and Mark-CA and Mark-CB and closed evidence on 19.05.2016. On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-RA to Mark-RQ and closed evidence on 01.06.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67/4749 with the Op vide policy bearing No.86025094 valid w.e.f. 09.12.2013 to 08.12.2014. He further argued that on 21.12.2013, the above-said vehicle was stolen from near the house of driver namely Jitender, r/o Village Vessor, Tehsil Madlauda, Distt. Panipat. He further argued that the complainant lodged an FIR bearing No.11 dt.10.01.2014 under Section 379 IPC in P.S.Madlauda. He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 19.08.2015. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op argued that the vehicle was stolen on 21.12.2013, whereas FIR No.11 dt. 10.01.2014 was got registered in P.S.Madlauda, Distt. Panipat after the delay of 20 days and the information regarding the loss of vehicle was given to the Op on 11.01.2014 after the delay of 21 days. He further argued that after receiving the loss intimation on 11.01.2014, the Op immediately deputed the investigator, who submitted his report after sending his reminders dt. 21.07.2014 and 06.08.2014. After receiving the report of investigator, the letters dt. 29.10.2014, 20.01.2015, 03.02.2015 were sent to the insured and final reminder dt. 03.03.2015 asking the complainant/insured to send the mentioned documents to enable the insurance company to process the claim but the insured did not comply the request of insurance company and the insurance company repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 19.08.2015.
6. On appraisal of pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged by the Op but there would have been no justification for the Op for denying the claim of complainant in its entirety only for such violation of term and condition. In this regard, reliance can be made to authority reported in 2015(3) CLT page 476 (NC) titled as NIA Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & others, wherein it has been held that Insurance claim-Theft of vehicle-Delay in FIR-Held-The complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR-He discharged his contractual obligation under the policy for informing the concerned Police Station. In the authority titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in II(2006) CPJ page 83 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that in case of violation of condition of policy as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis. In the authority titled as Mohammad Ejaj Vs.UII, 2014(4) CLT page 161 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana), it has been held that Insurance Claim-Repudiation-On the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. and 36 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to the Insurance Companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of F.I.R. and late intimation to the Insurance Company-Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to Insurance Companies which are binding upon them-Appeal accepted. The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case. It is, therefore, quite just and fair that if claim in respect of vehicle in question is settled on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement. So, we are of the considered view that the Op has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant in toto which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of Rs.8,12,500/- (insured value of the vehicle)=Rs.6,09,375/-, subject to furnishing of documents as demanded by the Op vide letters dt. 29.10.2014, 20.01.2015, 03.02.2015 and final reminder dt. 03.03.2015. The complainant is also directed to transfer the ownership of vehicle in the name of Op and also to submit the subrogation letter with the Op. The Op is also burdened to pay Rs.2200/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days after furnishing all the documents by the complainant as demanded by the Op vide above-said letters as-well-as transferred RC and subrogation letter, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.26.07.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
