BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.209/15.
Date of instt.: 14.09.2015.
Date of Decision: 02.09.2016.
Lehari Singh S/o Sh. Krishnu Ram, R/o Village Mundri, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Opp. Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate Office: 4th & 5th Floor “IFFCO TOWER” Plot No.-3, Sector-29, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001, through its Manager.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. D.R.Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite parties.
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 Tata Truck bearing registration No.HR-37-6531 with the Ops for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the period valid w.e.f. 11.12.2012 to 10.12.2013. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 17/18.03.2013, the said truck was stolen from the area of Sugar Mill, Kaithal. It is further alleged that an FIR bearing No.29 dt. 18.03.2013 was got lodged in P.S.Titram under Section 379 IPC. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops closed the claim file of complainant as “No claim” vide letter dt. 28.04.2014. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the information regarding the loss of truck No.HR-37-6531 was given to the Ops by the complainant on 28.03.2013 after the delay of 10 days; that after receiving the loss intimation on 28.03.2013, the answering insurance company immediately deputed the investigator M/s. Bhola & Associates of Delhi and the answering Ops wrote letters dt. 07.10.2013, 28.10.2013 and 06.12.2013 asking the complainant/insured to send the documents to enable the insurance company to process the claim but the insured did not comply the request of the insurance company and accordingly, the claim was closed vide letter dt. 28.04.2014 due to non-compliance. Accordingly, the repudiation of claim information vide letter dt. 28.04.2014 was served upon the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. 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 to Ex.C11 and Mark CA to Mark-CC and closed evidence on 10.05.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence documents Mark-RA to Mark-RG and closed evidence on 21.07.2016.
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. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant got insured his Tata-truck bearing registration No.HR-37-6531 with the Ops vide policy No.822900581 valid w.e.f. 11.12.2012 to 10.12.2013 for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also not disputed that the above-said vehicle was stolen in the midnight of 17/18.03.2013 from the area of Sugar Mill, Kaithal. It is also not disputed that the complainant got lodged an FIR No.29 dt. 18.03.2013 in P.S.Titram, Distt. Kaithal. The Ops have closed the claim file of complainant as “No claim” vide letter dt. 28.04.2014, Ex.C6/Mark-RG on the ground that the complainant has not submitted the original court accepted FIR under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody. Ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the information regarding the theft of vehicle in question was given to the Ops after 10 days. The Ops have not placed any documentary evidence that the information was given after 10 days. It is necessary to mention here that the Ops have mentioned the date of information given by the complainant as 18.03.2013 in para No.5 and 7 of the preliminary objection of their reply, however, they mentioned that the information was given after 10 days, which is contradictory to each other. The Ops have not produced even any affidavit to support the contentions taken by them in their reply. Whereas, on the other hand, the complainant has alleged in his complaint that after lodging the FIR, the complainant informed the office of the Ops and this fact is supported by his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the Ops have failed to prove on the file that the information regarding theft was given after the delay of 10 days. As already stated above, the claim of complainant was closed by the Ops as “No claim” for not submission of documents by the complainant. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that the decision on the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was taken by the court of ld. J.M.I.C., Kaithal on 26.05.2015 and the same was not in existence on 28.04.2014 when the claim of the complainant was closed as “No claim” by the Ops. From the certified copy, Ex.C1, it is clear that the date of decision in case in question on the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was taken by learned Magistrate on 26.05.2015. Therefore, the submission of this document by the complainant on or before 28.04.2014 was not possible. Ld. Counsel for the complainant stated at the bar that the complainant is now ready to submit the same with the Ops. We can rely upon the authority in this regard cited in 2014 (2) CLT page 390 (Haryana State Commission) titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar, wherein it has been held that Insurance claim-Repudiation-Delay of 12 days-Held-that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents-The decision of insurers’ to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds.
This authority is fully applicable to the facts of present case. So, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered view that the Ops are liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as insured value of the vehicle in question to the complainant, subject to submission of documents as per letter dt. 28.04.2014, subrogation letter and the transfer of ownership in the name of Ops within 15 days. Thereafter, the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. No order as to costs. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. 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.02.09.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
