Punjab

StateCommission

A/985/2015

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Finance Corp. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ankur Gupta

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,       PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.985 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 31.08.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on : 03.03.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   06.03.2017

 

Ranjit Singh son of Harbilas Singh, resident of Ghawaddi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

 

                                                                          Appellant/Complainant                   

          Versus

 

1.      Magma Fin Corporation Ltd., Dada Motors, Savitri Complex-1,          G.T Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana through its Manager.

2.      Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., The Mall, Ludhiana       through its Manager.

                                                            Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ludhiana.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.H.S.Guram, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                         : Sh. Ankur Gupta, Advocate

          For respondent no.1             : Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate

          For respondent no.2             : Sh. P.M Goyal, Advocate

         

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant has directed this appeal against order dated 16.07.2015 of District Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The appellant of this appeal is the complainant in the original complaint before District Forum Ludhiana and respondents of this appeal are opposite parties therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased one truck bearing registration no. PB-10-CK-2985 from Krishna Auto Sales, which was financed by OP no.1. OP no.1 also arranged the renewal of the insurance policy from OP no.2, which was one page insurance for insured amount of  Rs.9,20,076/-. In the month of November 2011/December 2012, the health of the complainant was not well. The complainant was using his truck through his driver Kuldeep Singh for loading and unloading scrap for interstate routes for his livelihood. Conseqeuntly, all the original papers i.e. original RC, policy, keys, national permit, licence of driver were lying in the truck. The truck was loaded from Mandi Gobindgarh to Cuttak and it took minimum 6 to 7 days to reach the destination thereat. The driver of the complainant called up him at 8.30 pm on 30.11.2011 from Jharkhand. The truck was expected to return at Mandi Gobindgarh on 4.12.2011, but truck did not reach at the destination. The complainant was unable to move due to health problem for searching the truck and its driver, which had not returned at Mandi Gobindgarh in the scheduled time. The complainant executed document of power of attorney in favour of Kulwant Singh, who registered FIR no. 7 of 2012 under Sections 364 and 392 of IPC at police station P.S Ramgarh in the year 2012 about non-traceability of the truck. The police filed report as untraced after due investigation. After loss of the truck and its driver, the complainant was not in possession of the documents of the vehicle and driving licence thereof. OP no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 19.08.2013 on the flimsy grounds. The complainant has, thus, filed complaint praying that OPs be directed to pay the amount to the extent of Rs.920076/-, besides Rs.2 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in preliminary objections that complaint is false and frivolous. Material facts have been suppressed from the Forum fraudulently by the complainant. On merits, it was denied  by answering OP  that OP no.1 arranged for one page insurance policy of above-said truck from OP no.2. OP no.1 has not admitted the averments of the complainant and rather prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      OP no.2 filed its separate written reply being insurer of the truck and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and is without any cause of action. The intimation was sent to OP no.1 insurer after 23 days by the complainant regarding loss of the truck. The Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The complainant has no insurable interest in the claim. The complainant has not supplied the details of the driver and his driving licence to OPs. On merits, this fact was not disputed that OP no.2 issued insurance policy along with terms and conditions to complainant. It was averred that there was delay of one month seven days in reporting the matter to police. OP no.2 repudiated the insurance claim on non-receipt of court order, vide letter dated 19.08.2013 for investigation status of the case. OP no.2 has closed the claim of the complainant, as per policy terms and conditions. Rest of the averments were denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A  along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.  As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Manager Reliance General Insurance Company/OP no.2 Ex.R-A, affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Rajput, Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 16.07.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 16.07.2015, the complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

7.      The complainant now appellant has assailed the validity of the order of the District Forum in rejecting the complaint of the complainant on the ground of non-intimation of the claim to the insurance company for 23 days and further not reporting the matter to the police regarding this offence for a period of one month and seven days. The submission of counsel for the complainant now appellant before us is that complainant is illiterate person and he fell ill and deputed his driver to operate the truck. He also appointed Kulwant Singh, as his attorney to look into the matters and on account of above facts, he visited Jharkhand from Punjab and above referred delay took place. The appellant strongly relied upon the circular, vide Ref:- IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.09.2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) to the insurance companies not to reject the bonafide and genuine claim of the insured on technical matters alone. We have examined the circular issued by IRDA, which is reproduced as under:-

          "The authority has been receiving several complaints that       claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission        of intimation and documents.

          The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that           the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed      documents within a specified number of days is necessary for   insurers for effecting various post claim activities like           investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement          etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of        genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or         in submission of documents due to unavoidable           circumstances.

          The insurer's decision to reject a claim shall be based on        sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such        intimation clause does not work isolation and is not absolute.     One needs to see the merits and good spirit of clause, without           compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely     technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in      policyholders losing confidence in the insurance industry,     giving rise to excessive litigation.

          Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a        sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with           utmost care and caution. It is also advised that the insurers           must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of           delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have     otherwise been rejected even if reported in time."

The gist of the circular issued by IRDA is that genuine claims should not be rejected on hyper technical grounds. Our own High Court has held in National Insurance Company Ltd versus Ravi Dutt Sharma and another, reported in 2012 ACJ 2171 that insurance company cannot reject the claim on account of delayed information about theft on the pretext that it has lost its right to investigate. The investigation of the theft lies with the province of the police. Our High Court has also held that intention of the insurance company is always to repudiate the genuine claim, on one ground or the other. Herein, in this case, we find that the claim of the complainant is genuine one. The investigator was appointed by the insurance company to look into the matter. The report of the investigator Ex.R-16 is on the record. The investigator verified the facts regarding this incident of snatching from police station and got confirmed the fact that theft of the vehicle was true and vehicle was found missing from 30.11.2011 about 8.30 pm. The investigator did not find falsity of this claim and rather got confirmed the fact of theft of the vehicle.

8.      Now, simple point before us is, whether genuine claim of the complainant can be repudiated on the simple ground of delayed intimation. As held by our own High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd (supra),  if case is genuine, it should not be rejected on the delayed intimation. Even IRDA issued instructions to insurance companies not to reject the genuine claims of the insured. Haryana State Commission, Panchkula in case titled as Ramesh Yadav versus The New India Assurance Company Limited,  reported in First Appeal No. 98 of 2014 decided on 03.04.2014 ,while relying upon circular reference no: IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.09.2011 held that such type of claims should not be rejected on delayed intimation, where they are genuine in nature. The genuine and bonafide claim is not point of controversy in this case because the investigator of OPs itself found the same to be correct. The complainant was resident of Mandi Gobingarh in the State of Punjab and the theft took place in the State of Jharkhand. The complainant was stranger in the State of Jharkand and he ran from pillar to post to trace out the driver and the truck through his attorney for above referred period. In the circumstances of the case, the delay is well explained because there was long distance between State of Punjab and Jharkhand, where theft took place. Such type of 23 days delay in intimating the OPs is natural circumstance in this case. While relying upon the report of the investigator on the record, whereby claim was found genuine regarding missing the driver and truck, we are of this view that District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The circumstances of the case are such, which do not create any doubt in the bonafide claim of the complainant and rather supported the bonafide claim of the complainant. Keeping in view the above IRDA Circular and judgment of our High Court, we are of this view that delay of 23 days in intimating the insurance company about loss of the vehicle should not be made a ground to deny the genuine claim of the complainant.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, we overturn the findings of the District Forum by accepting the appeal and accept the complaint of the complainant by directing OP no.2/Insurance Company to pay the insured declared value (IDV) of the truck, as per the contract of insurance, to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim till actual payment. The complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/-  as costs of litigation.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                          (H.S GURAM)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

March 6,  2017                                                           

(ravi)