Haryana

StateCommission

A/959/2015

SH. VIRENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP LATHWAL

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      959 of 2015

Date of Institution:      30.10.2015

Date of Decision :       09.03.2016

 

Virender Singh s/o Sh. Ram Singh Chauhan, Resident of Village Attarna, Tehsil and District Sonipat, Haryana.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, The Ferns Icon Survey No.28, Doddane Kundli, Bangalore-560037.

 

Also at:

 

M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, A-8, Bigios Towe, IInd Floor, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110088

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:                    Shri Parduman Yadav, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated September 22^nd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Virender Singh-complainant/appellant, was owner of tractor No.HR-10K-2078. It was insured with Bharti Axa General insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/respondent, for the period December 29^th, 2012 to December 28^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.3,50,000/-. During the intervening night of December 30^th/31^st, 2012, the tractor was stolen from the house of the complainant. F.I.R. No.463 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged on the same day, that is, December 31^st, 2012 in Police Station Rai, District Sonipat. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor. The surveyor investigated the matter and submitted report Exhibit R-1. Claim being lodged, the Insurance Company did not pay the benefits of insurance. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply raising plea that the complainant had got the insurance policy renewed by antedating the same in connivance with the agent of the Insurance Company. Another plea was raised that the policy was renewal of earlier insurance stated to have been done by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, which on verification was found to be fake. The plea was also raised that the complainant had informed the Insurance Company after 42 days of the theft. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order observed that the insurance policy was obtained by the complainant by fraud and dismissed the complaint.

5.      The question for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits of insurance or not?

6.      The Insurance Company has denied the claim of the complainant by raising two fold arguments. Firstly, that the complainant had given intimation after 42 days. Secondly, that the insurance policy (Exhibit C-2) was got ante dated, besides that the renewal was on the basis of earlier insurance which was found to be fake.

7.      The Insurance Company has placed on the file letter Exhibit R-15, written by complainant to the Insurance Company, wherein it has been mentioned that the theft came to his knowledge in the morning of December 31^st, 2012. He had telephoned at the call centre of the Insurance Company at No.18001032292 on January 3^rd/4^th, 2013. The Insurance Company has not led any evidence to show that the contents of the letter (Exhibit R-15) are not correct or that it did not receive intimation at their toll free number. The theft was stated to have taken place during the intervening night of December 30^th/31^st, 2012; F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was registered on the same day. Thus, there was no loss of time in reporting the matter to the Police or in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.

8.      We have seen the policy Exhibit R-29, on the basis of which the policy in question (Exhibit C-2) was issued as renewal. Exhibit R-29 shows that the vehicle in question was insured for the period from December 29^th, 2011 to December 28^th, 2012. This policy (Exhibit R-29) was also the renewal of earlier policy No.CV BZ0803522019 issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. The policy (Exhibit R-29) was to expire on December 28^th, 2012 and on the same day, that is, December 28^th, 2012, it was got renewed from the Insurance Company (opposite party), vide cover note Exhibit C-2/C-27 and policy Exhibit R-26. The vehicle being under finance also finds the particulars of being under hypothecation with Punjab & Sind Bank, Sonipat. Even the policy (Exhibit R-26) also finds mention of the vehicle being under hypothecation with Punjab & Sind Bank. The only stress being laid by the Insurance Company is Email (Exhibit R-25) from Atul Narula, which is totally unreliable document. There are no details as to who is Atul Narula is.  

9.      As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, it is established that the tractor of the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company and it was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. Thus, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant on account of theft of tractor. 

10.    Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed.  The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,50,000/-, that is, the IDV of the tractor to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. The litigation expenses are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

11.    The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the keys of the tractor, transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

 

Announced 09.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL