Haryana

StateCommission

A/1088/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASWANT SINGH(SINCE DECEASED) - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

02 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                        

First Appeal No  :      1088 of 2015

Date of Institution:        18.12.2015

Date of Decision :         02.05.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.3, District Centre 23-A, Gurgaon, Haryana, through Shri Amit Chawla, Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Company, SCO No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                             Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Jaswant (since deceased) through his LRs:

          a)      Smt. Sumitra-wife

          b)      Smt. Roshni-daughter

          c)      Mukesh-son

          d)      Naveen-son

All Residents of Village Dabodha Khurd, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

2.      Smt. Bedo-widow

3.      Virender-son

4.      Pooran-son

5.      Kanwar-son

6.      Vidha-daughter

          of Shri Jagat Singh

7.      Anita w/o late Hans Raj

8.      Manjeet s/o Sh. Hans Raj

9.      Poonam

10.    Pooja

11.    Sweety, daughters of Hans Raj

Minors through their mother and natural guardian Smt. Anita wife of late Shri Hans Raj,

All Residents of Village Dabodha Khurd, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Proforma Respondents

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:                    Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondents No.2 to 11 (Proforma respondents)

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.

 

This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated October 9^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.200 of 2012.

2.      Jaswant (Since deceased) now represented by his legal representatives-complainants/respondents No.1 (a) to 1(d), was the owner of tractor bearing registration No.HR-13D-9258. The tractor was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1/appellant, for the period April 3^rd, 2010 to April 2^nd, 2011, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit P-3. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.3.00 lacs.

3.      During the intervening night of April 20^th/21^st, 2010, the tractor was stolen. Information was given to the Police and the Insurance Company. F.I.R. (Exhibit R-2) was registered in Police Station, Sadar Bahadurgarh. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit P-2) and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh, vide order dated August 23^rd, 2012 (Exhibit P-8). The Investigator of the Insurance Company submitted report Exhibit R-6. The complainants filed claim with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company did not pay the insured amount. Hence, the complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company in its reply stated that the tractor was stolen during the intervening night of April 20^th/21^st, 2010 and F.I.R. was lodged on April 25^th, 2010 and the Insurance Company was informed on May 18^th, 2010. Thus, there was delay of five days in lodging of the F.I.R. and twenty eight days in giving information to the Insurance Company. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainants.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3.00 lacs, that is, IDV of the tractor, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses. The complainants were directed to execute the letter of subrogation, transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

6.      Indisputably, the tractor was stolen during the intervening night of April 20^th/21^st, 2010.  The complainants informed the Police and the Insurance Company. The Police registered F.I.R. Exhibit R-2. Untraced Report (Exhibit P-2) was submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh, vide order dated August 23^rd, 2012 (Exhibit P-8). The investigator of the Insurance Company submitted report (Exhibit R-6). The operative part of the report is reproduced as under:-

“……..we are of the opinion that time, date and place of theft seems to be genuine.”

7.      It is the case of the Insurance Company itself, as mentioned in its surveyor’s report Exhibit R-6, that the tractor was stolen. So, lodging of the F.I.R. after 5 days is immaterial. No evidence has been led to prove that the Insurance Company was informed after 28 days of the occurrence. In view of this, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainants. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

8.      Hence the appeal fails. It is dismissed. 

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal 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 02.05.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL