Haryana

StateCommission

A/326/2016

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI BHAGWAN - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

11 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      326 of 2016

Date of Institution:      18.04.2016

Date of Decision :       11.05.2016

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Block No.04, 7^th Floor, DLF, Tower-15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi through Shri Navjeet Singh, Assistant Manager (Legal) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.14, 4^th Floor, Sector-5, Panchkula.

 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh. Mange Ram, Resident of Village Sehlanga, Tehsil Matanhail, District Jhajjar.

Respondent/Complainant

 

2.      Branch Manager, Haryana Gramin Bank Birohar, Tehsil Matanhail, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated March 14^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.177 of 2014. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“5.     ….We direct the respondent No.1 to make the payment of claim/insured sum of Rs.4,86,000/- to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft of tractor i.e. 28.5.2013 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to transfer of R.C. and subrogation letter in the name of respondent No.1 company by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1.The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

2.      Tractor (Sonalika) bearing registration No.HR-14F-1041, owned by Jai Bhagwan-complainant/respondent No.1, was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1/appellant, for the period June 25^th, 2012 to June 24^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-8. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.4,86,000/-.

3.      During the intervening night of May 28^th/29^th, 2013, the tractor was stolen. F.I.R. No.117 (Exhibit P-3) was lodged in Police Station, Salhawas, District Jhajjar, on May 29^th, 2013. The Insurance Company was also informed. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit P-9) and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated October 15^th, 2014 (Exhibit R-5). Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

4.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the tractor was stolen during the intervening night of May 28^th/29^th, 2013 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given after 349 days and thus the complainant violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

5.      The plea of the Insurance Company that it was informed after 349 days is not tenable because to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. The Insurance Company has failed to disclose the date on which information was received from the complainant.  Even otherwise, in the Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’), it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”. 

6.      The tractor was stolen during the intervening night of May 28^th/29^th, 2013 and F.I.R. (Exhibit P-3) was lodged on the same day, that is, May 29^th, 2013. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit R-5) and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar. Once the Police have registered the F.I.R. and submitted untraced report, the question of breach of trust does not arise.

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176, deprecated the practice often adopted by the Insurance Companies of denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants.

8.      In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

9.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 11.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL