DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.396/2009
M/s Rajindra Concrete Products (P) Ltd.
Through its Director Mr. Harinder Singh,
Registered Office at A-114, Mangol Puri,
Industrial Area, Phase-II,
Delhi-110034 ….Complainant
Versus
M/s National Insurance Company
through its Branch Manager
E-13, Hauz Khas, Main Market,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 12.05.2009
Date of Order : 10.09.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Naina Bakshi
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on believing the assurance made by the OP the complainant got his car as well as other assets insured from the OP including a car make Santro Zip bearing registration No. DL-08CJ-0689 vide policy No. 360902/31/07/ 6100002471 for the period 10.08.17 to 09.08.08 for a sum of Rs.1,82,647/- for which a premium of Rs.6657/- was paid to the OP. It is stated that on 15.06.08 at around 3.15 a.m. the car had met with an accident and an FIR bearing No. 297/2008 U/s 279/337 IPC was registered with P.S. Mangolpuri. The complainant tried to trace out the address of the OP but he came to know the office address of the OP when he received a renewal notice from the OP. Then immediately the complainant informed the OP vide letter dated 11.08.08 and on the instruction of the OP the complainant filed the claim alongwith the estimate repair and other documents to the OP. The complainant was waiting for the settlement of the claim, but the OP took the premium of Rs.4050/- by cheque No.261887 dated 08.08.08 drawn on State of Bikaner of Jaipur for renewal from 2008 to 2009, having the knowledge regarding total loss of the car. The complainant sent several mails and reminders to the OP for settlement of his claim but no reply was received. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP. The OP vide letter dated 01.05.09 sent a reply informing about the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was delay in intimation regarding the claim. Further as per MLC report it was observed that driver of the insured vehicle was under the influence of alcohol.
Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.2,32,645/- (as detailed in the para 16 of the complaint) to the complainant with costs and also to refund the additional premium of Rs.4,050/- taken by OP through cheque No.261887 dated 08.08.08 as the vehicle was in total loss condition.
OP in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the vehicle No.DL-08CJ-0689 Santro Zip was insured by the OP vide policy No.360902/31/7/6100002471 for the period from 10.08.07 to 09.08.08. The vehicle in question was met with an accident on 15.06.08 at around 3.15 a.m. and FIR No. 297/2008 was lodged with P.S. Mangolpuri and MLC of the driver was conducted in which it was clearly mentioned that the driver was driving the vehicle under the influence of the liquor, which is clearly violation of M.V. Act as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is submitted that the complainant had lodged his claim in the office of the OP on 11.08.08 i.e. approximately after passing of more than 56 days the reasons best known to the complainant. It is submitted that according to their terms and conditions, OP repudiated the claim because of delay in intimation and as per the MLC of the driver. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP to repudiating the claim according to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is clearly mentioned in the condition No.1 of the Motor Policy “notice shall be given in the writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident/loss.” But the complainant failed to fulfill the condition. The complainant internationally not intimated the OP timely regarding the accident /damage of the vehicle because of the delay in intimation the OP repudiated the claim. It is submitted that MLC report suggests that the injured driver of the insured vehicle was under the influence of alcohol this is also against the terms and conditions of the policy. It is prayed that the complainant be dismissed.
Complainant has not filed rejoinder.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. H. K. Soni, Dy. Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP. Thereafter, OP was proceeded exparte on 20.01.15.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant had insured his vehicle Santro Zip bearing registration No. DL-08CJ-0689 vide policy No. 360902/31/07/ 6100002471 for the period 10.08.17 to 09.08.08 for a sum of Rs.1,82,647/- for which a premium of Rs.6657/- was paid to the OP as Annexure-7. The vehicle met with an accident on 15.06.08 at around 3.15 a.m. and an FIR bearing No. 297/2008 U/s 279/337 IPC was registered with P.S. Mangolpuri. The complainant sent a letter dated 07.08.08 to the OP for delay of filing the claim and also enclosed a cheque No. 261887 of Rs.4050/- for renewal of the policy as Annexure-VIII. The complainant issued a letter dated 11.08.08 to the OP as Annexure-X wherein complainant has informed the OP that they could not intimate regarding the accident as they have lost the insurance policy and not knowing from which branch it was issued. The complainant sent various emails to the OPs. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.04.09 as Annexure-XVI. The OP vide letter dated 01.05.09 informed the complainant that the claim has been repudiated as Annexure-XVIII. In the present case, admittedly there was a delay of 56 days in lodging the claim. The complainant has filed two judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance, 2017 AIR (SC) 4836 and by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No.3216/16 –National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hukam Bal Meena.
In the case of Om Prakash (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the condition regarding the delay shall not be shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasize that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of the consumer. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable objection should be not be forgotten while considering the claim made under the Act.”
In the case of Hukum (supra) the Hon’ble National Commission held that “a genuine claim is not be rejected by the Insurer only on account of delay in its submission. The insurer is required to require from the claimant as to what was the reason or the delay in submission of the claim. The claim should be rejected only where the insurer finds that it was liable to be rejected even if it had been submitted in time”.
In view of the above to judgments, the Hon’ble Courts rejected the plea of delay in filing the claim application.
The OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant stated that as per the MLC report the drive of the insured vehicle was under the influence of alcohol but the OP had not filed any document in this regard.
In view of the above discussion, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service while rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant. We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,82,645/- to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.1,82,645/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 10.09.18
