Haryana

StateCommission

A/1007/2015

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAAN MOHAMMAD - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.BASHAMBOO

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 1007 of 2015 & 407 of 2016

Date of Institution: 26.11.2015 & 10.05.2016

Date of Decision: 02.08.2016

 

Appeal No1007 of 2015

 

          Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 1505-1506, 15^th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Manager.

 

2^nd Address as given in complaint:

 

          Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, N.RD, Rider House, Plot No.136, Sector-44, Gurgaon.

Represented through Shri Aneesh Bhaskaran, Senior Legal Executive of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Subramanian Building, II Floor No.1, Club House Road, Annasalai, Chennai-6000002. 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

1.      Jaan Mohammad s/o Sh. Chandru, Resident of Village Nehada, Post Punhana, Tehsil Firozpur, Jhirka, Mewat, at present C/o Sh. Daya Yadav, Village Badshahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

2.      Fateh Mohd s/o Sh. Ami Khan, Resident of Village Nehda, Post Office Punhana, Tehsil Firozpur Jhirka, Mewat, at present C/o Sh. Daya Yadav, Village Badshahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

Appeal No.407 of 2016

1.      Jaan Mohammad s/o Sh. Chandru, Resident of Village Nehda, Post Punhana, Tehsil Firozpur, Jhirka, Mewat, at present C/o Sh. Daya Yadav, Village Badshahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

2.      Fateh Mohd s/o Sh. Ami Khan, Resident of Village Nehda, Post Office Punhana, Tehsil Firozpur Jhirka, Mewat, at present C/o Sh. Daya Yadav, Village Badshahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

                                      Appellants/Complainants

Versus

 

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 1505-1506, 15^th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Manager.

 

 

2^nd Address:

 

          Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, N.RD, Rider House, Plot No.136, Sector-44, Gurgaon.

Represented through Shri Aneesh Bhaskaran, Senior Legal Executive of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Subramanian Building, II Floor No.1, Club House Road, Annasalai, Chennai-6000002. 

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

 CORAM:            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.

                             Shri Arjun Atri, Advocate for Complainants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.1007 of 2015 and 407 of 2016 having arisen out of common order dated September 3^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), in complaint No.691 of 2010 filed by Jaan Mohammed and another-complainants/respondents.

2.               A truck bearing registration No.HR-74-0267, owned by the complainants, was insured with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period March 3^rd, 2009 to March 2^nd, 2010, for Rs.13,77,500/-, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure R-1). During the intervening night of June 19^th/20^th, 2009 the truck was stolen in the area of Hodal, Haryana. The complainant approached Station House Officer, Police Station Hodal, on the same day, that is, June 20^th, 2009, vide application Annexure A-1. The Police registered First Information Report (Annexure R-2). The Police filed untraced report. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated July 27^th, 2010 (Annexure R-4) on the ground that there was delay of 19 days in lodging of the F.I.R. and 25 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and since the complainants violated condition No.1 of the policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.                The Insurance Company in its reply reiterated the ground stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…..we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party –Insurance Company to make the payment of 75% of the sum insured to the complainants on account of theft of vehicle as per law with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 31.08.2010 till realization. Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of Ops but the compensation is being granted in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Amalendu Sahoo’s case (supra) and as such the complainants are not entitled to compensation on account of alleged harassment. The complainants are also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-. The OP shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

 5.               Aggrieved by the order of the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company has filed appeal No.1007 of 2015 for setting aside the impugned order and the complainants have filed appeal No.407 of 2016 for enhancement of compensation.

6.                Indisputably, the truck was insured with the Insurance Company and it was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. F.I.R. (Annexure R-2) was lodged with the Police and the Police filed the untraced report.

7.                The solitary contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is that there was delay of 19 days in lodging of the F.I.R. and 25 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company, so the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the benefits of the insurance to the complainants.

8.                The submission made is not tenable. The complainants have produced the copy of application dated June 20^th, 2009 (Annexure A-1) which was submitted to the Station House Officer, Hodal for registration of the F.I.R. So, the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. was not the fault of the complainants and it was for the Police to register the F.I.R. immediately. Thus, the plea of the Insurance Company in this respect is repelled.

9.                Coming now to the other plea that there was delay of 25 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company; learned counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to the Claim Form (Annexure R-3).

10.              A perusal of the Claim Form (Annexure R-3) shows that it is dated 18^th July, 2009.  Meaning thereby, the claim was filed after 28 days. In view of this, it is not explicable as to how the Insurance Company have counted 25 days. On the other hand, it is the case of the complainants that they had informed the Insurance Company immediately after the truck was stolen; the surveyor of the Insurance Company had taken the claim papers alongwith other relevant documents from them. The Insurance Company has not filed any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that on which date the complainants had informed the Insurance Company. Thus, the plea of the Insurance Company is not consistent that there was delay of 25 days. The Insurance Company has concealed the material evidence to deny its liability to pay the insured amount to the complainants. In view of this, the question of violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy does not arise. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.

11.              Since, the complainants did not violate the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the Insured Declared Value of the truck rather than the amount awarded by the District Forum. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is required to be modified.  Hence, the appeal No.407 of 2016 filed by the complainants is allowed.  It is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the IDV, that is, Rs.13,77,500/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  The cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.3100/-.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.1007 of 2015 be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL