Haryana

StateCommission

A/643/2016

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUNDU CONSTRUCTION CO. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.SHARMA

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal    No  :    643 of  2016

Date of Institution  :      14.07.2016  

Date of Decision    :      21.11.2016

 

  

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Shahnai Banquet Hall, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Authorized Officer Sh. Sandeep Kapoor, Senior Executive-Legal Claims, Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd and 3^rd Floors, SCO No.78-79, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

M/s Kundu Construction Company, Sector 14, Rohtak through its authorized Officer Sh. Surender Kumar son of Sh. Dalip Singh, resident of House No.295, Housing Board Colony, Jind.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                        

 

 

 

Present:               Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for the respondent-complainant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated May 20^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by M/s Kundu Construction Company-complainant was allowed.  Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.13,00,000/- (Insured Declared Value) of vehicle bearing registration No.HR46C-0714 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, August 06^th, 2013 till realization on account of theft of vehicle on June 16^th/17^th, 2011 and Rs.3500/- compensation to the complainant. 

2.          Complainant got its vehicle insured with the Insurance Company for the period June 11^th, 2011 to June 10^th, 2012 vide Cover Note (Exhibit C-4). The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.13,00,000/-. On the intervening night of June 16^th/17^th, 2011, the vehicle was stolen. First Information Report No.208 dated June 20^th, 2011 (Exhibit C-5) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station Rohtak Sadar, Rohtak. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the benefits of insurance. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.  

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that the complainant neither gave any intimation nor lodged any claim with regard to the theft of vehicle. 

4.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised two fold arguments.  Firstly, the complainant neither gave any intimation nor lodged any claim with the Insurance Company and secondly, the complaint was time barred.  In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on August 17^th, 2010.

5.      Indisputably, the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of June 16^th/17^th, 2011, that is, during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  The Police lodged F.I.R. (Exhibit C-5) on June 20^th, 2011 and also submitted Untraced Report (Exhibit C-6) on October 31^st, 2011.  No cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation. Rather the complainant specifically stated that the Insurance Company was intimated and filed affidavit to this effect.  Even if it is considered that the complainant did not lodge any claim, by filing the complaint before the District Forum, the claim should have been deemed to be lodged and appropriate action should have been taken by the Insurance Company.  Despite lapse of more than three years, still the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim of complainant.  Thus, the first ground taken by the Insurance Company is hereby repelled.  The authority Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the above cited case the theft took place between January 18^th and 20^th, 1995. The claimant himself wrote letter dated May 22^nd, 1995 to the Insurance Company but in the instant case, the complainant immediately informed the Insurance Company.

6.      Now, coming to the second ground that the complaint was time barred.  Despite completion of all the formalities, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim.  The cause of action arises only when the Insurance Company denied the claim and the limitation starts from the date of repudiation.  In Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Consumer Case No. 201 of 2010 decided on March 02^nd, 2016 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi held as under:-

            “It is clear, however, that the claim was never repudiated by the Insurance Company. It is a sound logical proposition that the cause of action should start from the date the insurance company have taken the final decision about the settlement of the claim. The contention of the OP, therefore, that the complaint is barred by limitation u/s 24(A) of the Act, does not hold any ground. It is held, therefore, that the complaint cannot be held to be not-maintainable on grounds of limitation.”

 

In this case, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, this ground of the Insurance Company is also rejected.  It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The Insurance Company should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of the claimants.  The impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 21.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK