STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.10 of 2015
Date of Institution: 05.01.2015
Date of Decision: 12.05.2015
- National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager, (Legal).
- The National Insurance Co. Ltd., having one of its Branch Office at Bhiwani, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani, through its Manager.
…..Appellants
Versus
Manjit S/o Sh.Dharampal, R/o village H.No.358 A, Jagat Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present: Shri B.S.Taunque, Advocate counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Vijayarania, Advocate counsel for the respondent.
O R D E R
R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 05 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.
2. It was alleged by the complainant that he was owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-16J/4809 and same was insured with the opposite party for the period 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2011 with insured value of Rs.38,665/-. The vehicle was stolen on 23.10.2010 and on the same day application was given to the police. The vehicle could not be traced by the police and thereafter FIR No.188 dated 02.02.2011 was recorded at P.S.City Bhiwani. Untrace report was also sent. Claim was submitted with the opposite party, but, was repudiated on flimsy ground such as delay in F.I.R etc.
3. O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that incident took place on 23.10.2010 but information was given to them on 23.02.2011 i.e. after four months. The complainant got registered FIR very late i.e. on 2.02.2011. Mr. Amit Jain was appointed as investigator, he submitted his report on 18.07.2011. Some documents were demanded from him, but, he did not furnish the requisite documents. Reminder dated 10.06.2011 was also sent. The claim submitted by him was altogether false that is why the same was repudiated. Objections about maintainability of complaint, not coming to Forum with clean hands, concealment of material and true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.
4. After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and ordered as under:-
“Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the complainant is entitled to the sum for which vehicle was insured and the respondent No.2 being the insurance company is directed:-
- To pay insured amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.
- To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”
- The complainant is directed to hand over the letter of subrogation & keys of the vehicle in question to the company.
5. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.
6. Arguments heard. File perused.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that just after theft on 23.10.2010, he visited BTM Chowki (Post Post) and application Annexure C-3 was given to the police, but, instead of lodging FIR, there and then the same was registered on 02.02.2011. When the vehicle was not found, he approached the O.Ps., but his claim was repudiated without any reasonable ground.
8. This argument is devoid of any force. It appears that story of theft of vehicle has been concocted just to get compensation. As per version of complainant if his report was not lodged at police station he could have approached the senior officers. He could have sent registered letter etc. about not registering F.I.R. Application Annexure C-3 is also dated 06.11.2010 i.e. after fourteen days, but, in complaint it is alleged that he moved application on that very day. This application is also not having any diary Number etc. such like application can be created at any time and cannot be relied upon. There is delay of three months in lodging F.I.R. and there is no plausible explanation about the same.
9. Further as per complainant theft took place on 23.10.2010 but he informed O.Ps on 23.02.2011 i.e. after four months. As per terms and conditions of policy he was supposed to inform immediately. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission have opined about ‘immediately’ and when the matter should be reported to the insurance company. Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8 that word ‘immediately’ means the information is to be given to them without any loss of time. Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the word ‘immediately’ giving reference of so many dictionaries. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal, (supra) that terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or substracted from the same. Hon’ble National Commission also opined in NIA Vs.Trilochan Jane, first appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009, Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 518 2013 (3) that if there is inordinate delay in giving information to the company, without any explanation, the claim can be repudiated by the company. In Satpal case (supra) there was 30 days delay in information given to the insurance company and in the present case also there is delay of four months.
10. The claimant has miserably failed to explain the delay of three months in lodging FIR. The inordinate delay of Three months of lodging FIR cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3719 of 2011 Siraj Khan vs. Mahindra Finance Ltd. and others, decided on 03.07.2012 wherein it is opined as under:-
“5. It emerged from perusal of the facts of the case and the documents placed on record that there was inordinate delay in informing the police as well as the opposite parties about the alleged incident. Nothing has been produced before us to counter this important aspect. The State Commission following the order of the National Commission in Appeal No.321 of 2005 in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that time is of essence in such cases and delay is in lodging the FIR and sending intimation about theft to the insurer would be fatal to the recovery of the insured vehicle and hence repudiation of the claim on this ground would be justified. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.”
Complainant has not placed any evidence on the file showing that he ever approached insurance company before 23.1.2011. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that he was not entitled for compensation and insurance company rightly repudiated his claim. The District Forum passed the impugned order by ignoring all these aspects and same cannot be sustained.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 19.11.2014 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
12. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.
May 12th, 2015 Urvashi Agnihotri R.K.Bishnoi, Member Presiding Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl.Bench
S.K.
