BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.305/15.
Date of instt.: 07.12.2015.
Date of Decision: 01.09.2016.
Pawan Kumar son of Vishambar Dass, resident of 481/21, Krishana Nagar, Jind Road, Kaithal (Haryana).
……….Complainant.
Versus
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manage, Dhand Road, Kaithal vide policy No.87460204 valid w.e.f. 18.04.2014 to 17.04.2015.
- Yoginder Kumar Bansal/Vaibhav Bansal-Agent, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Dhand Road, Kaithal.
..……..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. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. A.K.Nirwani, Adv. for Op No.2.
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-56/0299 with the Op No.1 vide policy No.87460204 valid w.e.f. 18.04.2014 to 17.04.2015. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 12-13.05.2014, the said vehicle was stolen near Gali No.4, New Karnal Road, Kaithal and an FIR bearing No.122 dt. 19.05.2014 was got lodged in Police Station Civil Line, Kaithal under Section 379 IPC. Information regarding theft of above-said vehicle was given to the Op No.1 on 13.05.2014. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op No.1 repudiated the claim of complainant. 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. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the LTV Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-56/0299 was stolen on 12.05.2014 at 11.00 p.m., whereas FIR No.122 was got registered in P.S. Civil Lines Kaithal on 19.05.2014; that the information regarding the loss/theft of vehicle was given to the answering Op on 20.05.2014 after delay of 7 days; that it is also established by the FIR that the complainant parked his vehicle on the road-side for repairing and the same was stolen on 12.05.2014, which means that the complainant left the vehicle in question un-attending without proper precautions being taken to prevent damage or loss in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy; that the answering Op wrote letters dt. 26.05.2014, 15.01.2015, 31.01.2015, 16.02.2015 and 03.03.2015 asking the insured to send the documents and explanation but the insured did not comply the request of insurance company and accordingly, the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 18.05.2014. 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. Op No.2 did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including last opportunity, so, the defence of Op No.2 was stuck off vide order dt. 03.05.2016.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and Mark CA to Mark CE and closed evidence on 19.07.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark RA to Mark RO and closed evidence on 19.07.2016.
5. 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.
6. 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-56/0299 with the Op No.1 vide policy No.87460204 valid w.e.f. 18.04.2014 to 17.04.2015. He further argued that on the intervening night of 12-13.05.2014, the said vehicle was stolen near Gali No.4, New Karnal Road, Kaithal. He further argued that the complainant informed the policy on 13.05.2014 and this fact is clear that a V.T. was made to Police Station, Kaithal on 13.05.2014 but FIR bearing No.122 was lodged by the Police Station Civil Line, Kaithal under Section 379 IPC on 19.05.2014. He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op No.1 repudiated the claim of complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the authorities titled as Baljeet Vs. UII, 2014(1) CPJ page 117 (NC); UII Vs. Riyajuddin, 2015(4) CPJ page 518 (NC) and NIC Vs. Sunil Sharma, 2015(4) CPJ page 141(NC).
6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint. He argued that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the complainant has intimated to Op No.1 after seven days of the alleged theft. He further argued that the vehicle in question was stolen on 12.05.2014, whereas the FIR was got registered on 19.05.2014. He further argued that the complainant left the vehicle in question un-attended without proper precautions being taken to prevent damage or loss in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.
7. On appraisal of pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear from the V.T. that the complainant had informed the policy on 13.05.2014 and the policy has got registered the FIR on 19.05.2014. Further, it is admitted by the Op No.1 in the reply that the intimation regarding the theft of vehicle in question was given after seven days. The complainant has not placed any document to prove that he has given the intimation earlier. So, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. But there would have been no justification for the Op No.1 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 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 above authorities are fully applicable to the present case. The contention of Op that the complainant has mis-represented the material fact by providing tractor key instead of insured vehicle key, has no force because the Op No.1 has placed an affidavit of complainant Mark-RG, wherein it is specifically stated by the complainant that he had purchased the second hand vehicle in question and the key which was received by the complainant from the previous owner was supplied to the Op. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the previous owner had changed the original lock of the vehicle in question with a local make lock. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the complainant has no other key of the vehicle in question except the key which was handed over to Op. The Op No.1 has not produced any evidence on the basis of which, it could be proved that the key handed over by the complainant was of a tractor. So, we are of the considered view that the claim in respect of vehicle in question should have been settled on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement. Hence, the Op No.1 has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant in toto which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op No.1 to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. 75% of Rs.2,00,000/- (insured value of the vehicle), subject to furnishing of subrogation letter and transfer the ownership of vehicle within 15 days in the name of Op No.1. 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. 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.01.09.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
