Delhi

StateCommission

A/96/2015

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. SAURABH SINGHAL - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments: 14.07.17

           Date of Decision:     18.07.17

First Appeal No. 96/2015

In the matter of:

M/s Cholamandalam MS  Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Ist Floor Plot No. 6, Pusa Road

Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110 005.                                                                           …..Appellant

           

 

                                                                        VERSUS

 

Mr. Saurabh Singhal

S/o Shri Sunil Singhal

R/o C-38-C, Gali No.4

West Vinod Nagar

Delhi.                                                                                                  ….Respondent

           

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

SHRI O.P.GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

          OP feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.12.14 passed by District Forum has preferred the instant appeal.

2.       Facts lie in a narrow compass.  Santro Car No.  DL 3 C BF 0209 belonging to complainant/respondent was stolen on 11.01.2008 from Mandawali, Delhi.  The same was insured with the OP/appellant.  Complainant lodged FIR on 14.04.08 and lodged claim with appellant insurance company on 05.06.08.  At this stage it is relevant to mention that District Forum has wrongly incorporated date of information to insurance company as 07.05.2008 instead of 05.06.2008.

3.       Plea of the complainant for not informing the insurance earlier was given in para 4 of the complaint.  He stated that being common man he was under impression that he had to apply for insurance claim alongwith copy of FIR, final report, registration certificate and valuer’s report etc.  which he got completed after getting untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. from police on 09.05.08.  Thereafter sometime was taken by the valuer and after completion of all the formalities complainant submitted his claim to the insurance company.

4.       The appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant had not forwarded the intimation to them in respect of theft of vehicle and he had breached condition No.1 and 9 of the policy.

5.       According to complainant as per cover note issued by OP on 11.01.08 no such condition was intimated.  Though OP was bound to inform each and every condition of the policy at the time of taking money from the complainant but the OP did not inform and charged Rs. 10,661/- as premium for insurance. OP 1 who is Manager of OP No. 2/insurance company are jointly and severally liable for the same and suffering caused to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.  Hence he filed complainant for directing OP to pay Rs. 3,26,059/- being insurance value of car, Rs. 50,000/-for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges.

6.       Appellant filed WS reiterating the grounds taken in repudiation letter.  He filed documents issued with policy to show terms and conditions.

7.       Both the parties filed evidence by affidavit.  After going through the same and hearing the parties the District Forum found that printed terms and conditions  sent with the policy are neither signed by the complainant nor the policy cover invites attention of the insured to a particular condition relied by OP.  So complaint was allowed and appellant was directed to grant IDV of the car with 9% per annum interest and Rs. 20,000/- as damages.

8.       We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  We feel that observations of the District Forum to the effect that printed terms and conditions sent with the policy are not signed by the complainant is far fetched observations.  There is neither requirement nor any practice of getting the terms and conditions signed separately.  The same are part and parcel of the policy and complainant should have read and understood the same before taking the policy.

9.       We may mention that aforesaid observation of the District Forum convey that terms and conditions were sent with the policy.  So complainant cannot be heard to say that the same was not sent.  His only case in para 6 of the complaint was that no such condition was intimated by the OP.    When the terms and conditions are supplied, no separate intimation is required to be given.

10.     Counsel for the respondent while arguing the appeal submitted that condition No. 1 at page 31 of bunch of appeal is in two parts.  The first part pertains to occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Second part pertains to theft or criminal act in which event insured has to give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. According to him this second condition does not contain requirement of intimation to insurance.  We are unable to appreciate the difference tried to be made out by counsel for respondent. Word ‘accident’ is wide enough to include theft. ‘Accident’ means something which happens suddenly, unexpectedly without being anticipated.  It is not confined to accident by collision of two vehicles.  Our view find support from the words used in clause which are not confirmed to accident, rather it is accidental loss. ‘Loss’ may be on account of any reason. Theft is one of accidental loss.

11.     In taking the above view we are fortified by decision of National Commission in RP No. 523/13 titled as Sohan Lal Arora vs. Branch Manager, Cholamandlam decided on 12.08.13.  Similar difference was tried to be made out by petitioner but rejected by National Commission.  It was held in para 6 of judgement that whole clause has to be read holistically but not in vacua in bits & pieces for the benefit of one and for the detriment of other.

12.     The counsel for appellant submitted that similar clause came up consideration before National Commission in Ram Prasad vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. 1 (2014) CPJ 531.  At page 533 of the report the clause has been reproduced.  No difference was found between two parts.  The complaint was dismissed in District Forum which was upheld in State Commission and revision before National Commission was dismissed.  Thus all the three courts concurrently dismissed the complaint.  The same is squarely applicable to the case in hand.

13.     Counsel for appellant also relied upon another decision of National Commission in New India Assurance Company vs. Rajesh Yadav II (2013) CPJ 398 In in which it was held that delay in informing insurance company was fatal as it deprived insurance company of its legitimate right to inquire into the theft.  Hence repudiation was found to be justified.  Complaint was dismissed.  In the said case reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble  Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6731/2010 title as Oriental Insurance Company Ld. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha decided on 17.08.10 wherein it was held that delay in intimation deprives insurance company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged theft and make endeavour to recover the same. Thus insurance company could not be saddled with liability to pay compensation to the insured despite the fact he had not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy.  Similar view has been repeatedly taken by other benches of National Commission in cases referred to in para 14 of the  judgement.

14.     As a result of the above discussion the appeal succeeds and is accepted.  Impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                        (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                             MEMBER (JUDICIAL)