Haryana

StateCommission

A/103/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHIPAL - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 103 of 2016

Date of Institution: 03.02.2016

Date of Decision : 29.03.2016

 

 

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

 

1. Mahipal aged 47 years son of Sh. Jag Ram Singh, resident of Village Bar Gurjar, Police Station, Kherki Daula, District Gurgaon.

Respondent-Complainant

2. Magma Finance Corporation Limited through its Manager, A-193, Phase I, Okhla, Near Police Station, New Delhi.

                                      Respondent-opposite party No.2

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri V.K. Arya, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Mahipal-complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR55J-3663. The vehicle was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short ‘the Insurance Company’), for the period July 11^th, 2010 to July 10^th, 2011. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.6.00 lacs.

2.      On December 04^th, 2010, the vehicle was stolen. The complainant informed the Police. F.I.R. No.705 dated December 07^th, 2010 was registered in Police Station Gurgaon. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that there was delay of three days in lodging the FIR and twenty three days in giving intimation to it. 

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated November 26^th, 2015, allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to make the payment of 75% of the sum insured alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realisation and Rs.3100/- litigation expenses.

5.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal.

6.      At this juncture, before adverting to the facts at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to 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 specifically mentioned in the above said circular by IRDA that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.  The operative part of the circular reads 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.”

7.      Indisputably, the vehicle was stolen on December 04^th, 2010. F.I.R. was lodged with the Police. The vehicle was not recovered. No cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant.  Thus, the Insurance Company repudiated genuine claim on one pretext or the other.  The act of the Insurance Company exhibits a total disregard to the circular dated September 20^th, 2011, of the IRDA.

8.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held as under:-

“12.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.” 

9.      In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

10.    Indisputably, the IDV of the vehicle was insured Rs.6.00 lacs and it was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. This being so, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV.

11.    For the reasons recorded supra, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 29.03.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

UK