BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.408 of 2017

Date of Instt. 25.10.2017

Date of Decision: 25.07.2018

Anil Chopra, Chairman Saint Soldier Educational Society, 680 L Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-II, 361000 356 Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. SS Turna, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. AK Arora, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is the Chairman of educational Group i.e. Saint Soldier Educational Society. The car bearing registration No.PB08-CM-8697 is owned by the complainant and the same was used by Amarpal Singh Principal of Saint Soldier Institution of Pharmacy, Jalandhar. The said car is insured with the OP, who issued the insurance policy with assurance to pay the losses as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The car was got insured for the value of Rs.3,70,000/- after making payment of insurance premium Rs.7997/- in cash.

2. That the car in question was being used by Sh. Amarpal Singh, resident of 274, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar and who parked the said car outside of his house on the intervening night of 7/08.04.2016 and found in the morning that the car was missed from the place, where it was parked and tried to trace out the car, but all in vain and ultimately, an FIR No.78 dated 13.04.2016, u/S 379 was got registered with PS Rama Mandi, Jalandhar and intimation in this respect was orally given on the same day to the OP. However, intimation in writing was given to the OP on 03.05.2016. The police investigated the matter, but the said vehicle was not traced out and ultimately, untrace report was submitted by the police, which was accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate on 06.03.2017. But the OP without any reason repudiated the claim of the complainant, which tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the insurance claim i.e. IDV of Rs.3,70,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly, OP appeared through its counsel and filed reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the vehicle in question has been stolen by unidentified persons on the intervening night of 07/08.04.2016 from Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar. The intimation qua the theft of the vehicle was given to the OP on 03.05.2016 that after the gap of about 25 days. FIR in respect of the theft of the vehicle was lodged on 13.04.2016. On the receipt of intimation, Mr. M. L. Malha was deputed as Investigator to investigate the claim, who has submitted his report on 02.07.2016 with the company. Since, the complainant did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle for a period of 25 days and lodged the FIR in respect of the theft of the vehicle after a period of 6 days. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and law laid down in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Tirlochan Jane. The complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim because the complainant is required to give intimation regarding theft immediately to the OP and thus, the claim of the complainant have been rightly repudiated. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is owner of the car and the same was insured with the OP and the car was stolen and accordingly, a claim was submitted, but the same was repudiated according to the terms and conditions. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and then closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jaibir Shankar as Ex.OA along with some documents Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. In nutshell, the case projected by the complainant is that he is the owner of the car bearing No.PB08-CM-8697 and the same was got insured with the OP after making a payment of the premium and copy of the insurance is placed on the file by the complainant is Ex.C-2. As per insurance policy, IDV of the insured vehicle is Rs.3,70,000/-, but the said car was missed from the place of parking on the intervening night of 07/08.04.2016 and the user of the vehicle Amarpal Singh Principal as well as complainant made efforts to trace out the car, but could not be succeeded and ultimately, a case was got registered on 13.04.2016, FIR No.78 under Section 379 IPC, PS Rama Mandi and the copy of the FIR is placed on the file by the complainant Ex.C-3 and thereafter, information Ex.C-4 was given to the OP regarding theft, but despite having a good case, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy and illegally grounds, vide letter Ex.C-5 dated 31.08.2017.

8. On the other hand, the case refuted by the OP is only on the ground that there is a delay of intimation regarding theft of the vehicle, to the insurance company, which is absolutely violation of the terms and conditions, for that the OP has brought on the file affidavit of Jaibir Shankar Ex.OA and copy of the insurance certificate Ex.O-1 and copy of the terms and conditions/Private Car Package Policy Ex.O-2 and referred condition No.1 from the said terms and conditions upon which the claim of the complainant has been rejected rightly.

9. From the above discussion, it come out that this Forum has to adjudicate the question whether the insurance claim of the complainant has been legally repudiated by the OP or not. In order to reach a right conclusion, it is necessary to go through the repudiation letter Ex.C-5 dated 31.08.2017, which we like to reproduce as under:-

“We regret to inform you that the competent authority has closed your file as Repudiated on the following ground:-

“Apart from other requirements of the claim, The delay of 6 days in filing the FIR and 25 days in intimating to the Insurance Company can be fatal as in the meantime, the car could have traveled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabadia, as pronounced vide order dated 01.09.2011 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi.”

10. From the scanning of the aforesaid repudiation letter, the picture has been become clear that the insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated only for the question of delay and in order to establish that whenever there is any delay, then the insured is not entitled for the insurance claim and for that the counsel for the OP referred a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2016(1) C. P. J. 450, titled as “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shravan Singh”. On the same point, he has also referred some other judgments of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2014(1) C. P. J. 321, titled as “Ramesh Chandra Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others” and Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2016(1) C. P. R. 776, titled as “Gurnam Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others”.

11. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments of learned counsel for the OP and also sympathetically considered the condition No.1 as mentioned in the terms and conditions Ex.O-2 and find that the aforesaid condition No.1 itself goes in favour of the complainant not favouring the OP, because in case of theft of any vehicle, the matter should be referred immediately to the police not to the insurance company. So, we find that the insurance company has mis-interpreted the aforesaid condition No.1 just to decline the insurance claim of the complainant and thus, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant has illegally repudiated by the OP and in support of these observations, we take an opportunity to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2017(1) C. P. R. 787, titled as “Jagjit Singh Vs. M/s Cholamandlam, Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Insurance Company has not been able to prove as to what prejudice had been caused to them due to delay in intimation of theft.”

Similarly, there is an other pronouncement of Hon'ble State Commission, Haryana, cited in 2014(2) CLT 390, titled as “Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“A person, who lost his vehicle, which was being used by him for earning livelihood straightway may not go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation, at the first instance he himself makes effort to search the vehicle, filing of claim with the insurance company is the last resort, it was indeed a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant for repudiating respondents claim on flimsy ground, it would not be fair or reasonable to reject even the genuine claims, which had been verified and found to be correct by the Surveyor, 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, which is otherwise proved to be genuine, Insurance company liable to pay claim.”

Further, we like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, cited in 2018(1) R. C. R. (Civil) 42, tiled as “Om Parkash Vs. Relaiance General Insurance and Others”.

12. In the light of above latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble National Commission, we come to conclusion that the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the OP are not applicable in this case because the latest judgments as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court will supersede the previous judgment. So, accordingly, it is clearly established that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed i.e. value of the insured car as well as compensation.

13. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to pay the insurance value of the car i.e. Rs.3,70,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 31.08.2017, till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

25.07.2018 Member President