Haryana

StateCommission

A/482/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KELA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     482 of 2015

Date of Institution:     26.05.2015

Date of Decision :     24.02.2016

1.      The Manager Reliance General Insurance Company, Palm Court Building, Maharana Partap Chowk, Gurgaon.  

2.      The Manager, Reliance General Insurance  Company, through Sh. Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager Legal, Reliance General Insurance Company, SCO No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

1.      Kela d/o Sh. Tara Chand, Resident of Vats Colony, near HP Gas Agency, Bahadurgarh.

2.      Dholi d/o Sh. Tara Chand Resident of Vats Colony, near HP Gas Agency, Bahadurgarh.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Kela and Dholi-Complainants/respondents, were the owners of tractor bearing registration No.HR-13A-6198. The tractor was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period April 10^th, 2009 to April 9^th, 2010, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.1,78,000/-.

2.      During the intervening night of April 19^th/20^th, 2009, the tractor was stolen. The complainant informed the Police of Police Station Nihal Vihar, West Delhi, vide Daily Diary Report No.7A on April 20^th, 2009. The Police registered F.I.R. No.136 (Exhibit C-2). The Insurance Company was also informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company investigated the matter and submitted report Exhibit OP-1. The Police submitted untraced report. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated December 25^th, 2009, (Exhibit OP-2). The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the tractor was left unattended at the time of theft. It was further stated that there was delay of 48 days in lodging of the F.I.R. and 82 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated February 9^th, 2015, allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,33,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realisation and Rs.5000/- litigation expenses.

5.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal.

6.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the tractor was stolen during the intervening night of April 19^th/20^th, 2009, and the intimation to the Insurance Company was given after 82 days and thus the complainant violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

7.      The contention is not tenable. 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”.  In the case in hand, although the Insurance Company has pleaded that there was delay of 82 days in giving intimation but to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. The tractor was stolen during the intervening night of April 19^th/20^th, 2009. The complainant informed the Police on the same day, that is, April 20^th, 2009 and F.I.R. (Exhibit C-2) was lodged. The Police submitted the untraced report. Thus, the evidence led by the complainant has proved that the tractor was stolen.

8.      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.  Thus, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. No case for interference is made out.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

Announced 24.02.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL