Haryana

StateCommission

A/729/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULVINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GOEL

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     729 of 2016

Date of Institution:     08.08.2016

Date of Decision :      08.09.2016

 

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Gole Bank, above S.B.O.P., Kurukshetra through its Regional Office i.e. United India Insurance Company, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager Sunita Sharma.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Head Office: 24, Whites Road, Chennai-160014 through its Regional Office i.e. United India Insurance Company, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager Sunita Sharma.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Kulvinder Singh s/o Sh. Jagdish Singh, Resident of Village & Post Office Thoi, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Munish Goel, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Neeraj Sheoran, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The assail in the present appeal is to the order dated June 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint No.22 of 2016, filed by Kulvinder Singh-complainant/respondent, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. This order should be complied within a period of two months, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party and in that case also the Ops shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of order till its payment.”     

2.                The factual score that is essential to be depicted is that the respondent-complainant was the owner of vehicle Mahindra Bolero, bearing registration No.HR-65-8064. It was got insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period March 25^th, 2014 to March 24^th, 2015, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.5.00 lacs.

3.                During the intervening night of September 23^rd/24^th, 2014, the vehicle was stolen. First Information Report (Exhibit C-3) was lodged in Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, on the same day, that is, September 24^th, 2014. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit C-5). Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount and repudiated claim vide letter dated 13^th November, 2015 (Exhibit C-6) on the ground that there was delay of 8 days in giving intimation by the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.                The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of September 23^rd/24^th, 2014 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given on October 1^st, 2014, that is, after 8 days and thus the complainant violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

5.                The contention raised is not tenable. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove that the intimation was given after 8 days. 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 vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of September 23^rd/24^th, 2014 and F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was lodged on the same day, that is, September 24^th, 2014. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit C-5) and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa. Once the Police have registered the F.I.R. and submitted untraced report, the question of breach of trust does not arise. In view of this, the plea taken by the Insurance Company deserves to be deprecated because complainant’s claim is 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.

7.                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.

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 complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 08.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL