Haryana

StateCommission

A/721/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LUXMI PHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

RAM AVTAR

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      721 of 2016

Date of Institution:      08.08.2016

Date of Decision :       07.09.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Opposite Gole Bank, Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra-136118, through its Branch Manager now through Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.123-124, Sector-17, Regional Office, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

M/s Luxmi Pharma, Shop No.2-3, Minar Road, Karnal, through its Prop. Shri Nitin Singla s/o late Shri Surender Singla.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Ram Avtar Singh, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated June 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by M/s Luxmi Pharma-complainant/respondent, seeking benefits of insurance with respect to its vehicle, which was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy, was allowed. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…….we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.4,65,000/- 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 OP shall be liable to pay the simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.4,65,000/- from the date of order till its payment.”

2.                Jeep-Mahindra Bolero, bearing registration No.HR-45B-3472, owned by the complainant-respondent, was insured with the Insurance Company, for the period July 28^th, 2014 to July 27^th, 2015, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-5. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.4,65,000/-.

3.                During the intervening night of August 10^th/11^th, 2014, the vehicle was stolen. First Information Report (FIR) No.617 (Exhibit C-1) was lodged in Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal, on August 12^th, 2014. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit C-2). The Insurance Company was informed.  The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29^th February, 2016 (Exhibit R-2). Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

4.                The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of August 10^th/11^th, 2014 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given after 18 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 there was delay in giving intimation to it. A perusal of the repudiation letter (Exhibit R-2) shows that the Insurance Company has not disclosed that on which date the intimation was received from the complainant.  On the other hand, the complainant in para No.5 of the complaint has specifically pleaded that he alongwith his brother Vikas Singla had personally visited the office of the Insurance Company on 12^th August, 2014 and informed the concerned official about the theft of his vehicle. This plea of the complainant has not been denied by the Insurance Company in its reply. It is basic concept of pleadings that the opposite party has to deny specifically every averment made in the complaint if it (opposite party) chooses to dispute the same.   A non specific or evasive denial in the written version may be taken as an admission of complaint. Since there is no specific denial to para No.5 of the complaint, so it amounts to admission. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.

6.                The vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of August 10^th/11^th, 2014 and F.I.R. (Exhibit C-1) was lodged on 12^th August, 2014. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit C-2). The Insurance Company was informed. So, the question of breach of trust does not arise.

7.                In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

8.                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 07.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL