BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:257 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 08.09.2015.
Date of Decision:.26.02.2018
Kanwar Bhan son of Shri Chandu Ram, resident of village Gaindawas, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
L & T General Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office L & T House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai and having its Corporate office at 601-602, 6th Floor, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai through its authorized signatory.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Mr. Rajesh Jindal, President
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Virender Yadav, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Satender Ghanghas, Advocate Proxy counsel of
Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant is the registered owner of Tractor bearing registration No. HR-17A-2581 make Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, chassis no. WRCF61918972172, engine no. 473030SSF06685, manufacturing year 5/2013 and the aforesaid tractor was duly insured with the respondent company covering the risk for the period from 31.5.2013 to 30.5.2014 vide cheque/DD no. 052956 dated 31.5.2013 for a sum of Rs. 8,555/- drawn on Asix Bank Limited. It is alleged that the aforesaid tractor was stolen in between 23/24.5.2014 and a FIR no. 124 dated 25.5.2014 under Section 379 IPC registered with Police Station Siwani, District Bhiwani was lodged. It is alleged that the intimation of the theft was immediately given to the respondent company and after completing the entire formalities, the complainant lodged the claim to the fullest sum insured of Rs. 6,00,000/- and the police could not trace out the stolen tractor and the learned Magistrate also issued untraced report in respect of the insured tractor, which was duly supplied to the company for settlement of the clam. It is further alleged that a period of more than one year has lapsed, but the claim case of the complainant has not been settled so far and the complainant visiting the concerned officials of the respondent company time and again with the request to settle the claim, but all the times the complainant was being assured that the claim shall be decided at the earliest possible. It is alleged that a legal notice dated 6.7.2015 was sent to the respondent but till today no claim has been passed and nor any intimation in respect of decision of the claim of the tractor in question has been sent to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, OP filed written statement alleging therein that the tractor in question is alleged to have been stolen on 23/24.5.2014 whereas the insurance company was informed on 8.8.2014 i.e. after 74 days. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated and he was informed accordingly vide letter dated 31.3.2015. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11 alongwith affidavit Annexure CW1/A.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the tractor with trolley in question was stolen between the night of 23/24.5.2014 and an FIR no. 124 dated 25.5.2014 was registered under Section 379 IPC with the concerned police station. He submitted that the intimation of the theft was given to the insurance company immediately. The complainant lodged the claim for the IDV of Rs. 6 lakh of the tractor with the OP. The police could not trace the tractor and the Illaqua Magistrate has also issued untrace report in this regard. Despite repeated requests of the complainant the insurance company has failed to settle the claim of the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that there is delay of 74 days by the complainant in giving the intimation to the insurance/opposite party regarding the theft of the tractor in question. He submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant was bound to inform to the OP immediately after the occurrence of the theft. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 31.3.2015.
8. The OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to intimate the insurance company about the theft of his tractor immediately and there is delay of 74 days in intimation to the company. The theft of the tractor has not been challenged by the OP. The complainant has also obtained the final report which has not been denied by the OP. The OP has also produced the investigation report dated 30.9.2014 and the investigator in his report has also confirmed the theft of the tractor. In case of the violation of the condition of the policy, the claim to be settled on non-standard basis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Kanderwal IV 2008 CPJ 1 (SC), it has been stated that in case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, when the insurer has obtained the comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The claim should be settled on non-standard basis. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the factum of the tractor being stolen has not been denied by the OP. Considering the facts of the case, we hold that the OP should settle the claim of the complainant on non- standard basis and the 75% amount of the insured amount should have been paid by the OP to the complainant. In view of the above findings, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay the 75% of the insured amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the present complaint till the date of payment. This order be complied with by the OP within 90 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:26.02.2018.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
