Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.154/25.04.2016
Sh. Gaurav s/o Sh. Madan Mohan,
r/o 8277, Gali Atma Ram, Chotte Lal,
Anaj Mandi, Rani Jhanshi Road, Delhi-110006 …Complainant
Versus
OP: The New India Assurance Company Limited
122/124, Model Basti, Delhi-110005
Also at:
10th Floor, Core-II, Scope Meenar, Laxmi Nagar
Delhi-110092 ...Opposite Party
Order Reserved on: 16.02.2023
Date of Order: 03.05.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Inder Jeet Singh
ORDER
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) : Complainant bought insurance policyfor his motor cycle bearing no. DL-10-SD-5923 (Appeche RTR RR 160 cc) from OP and polic issued was valid upto 30.07.2016 for sum insured Rs.50,641/-. However, the bike was stolen, an FIR was also lodged with the police, it remained untraced by the Police. OP was also informed of theft of the motor cycle. But the claim of complainant was denied on the ground that there is delay in informing theft of bike to OP. The complainant was also misbehaved with bad language by the OP. That is why, there is deficiency of service as well as harassment for which complaint has been filed.
1.2. Whereas, the complaint is opposed by OP that neither there is any deficiency of service nor any kind of harassment by the OP but the complainant has violated terms and conditions of the policy by making inordinate delay of 62 days in informing the episode of theft (as date of loss was 06.12.2015 but the OP was informed on 08.02.2016), the claim was rightly repudiated by letter dated 16.03.2016. The condition no. 1 violated reads as “notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage & in the event of any claim & thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require”.
2. (Case of Complainant)- The complainant got insured his motor cycle no. DL-10-SD-5923 (in brief motor-cycle) from OP vide policy no. 32010331150100000921 valid from 31.07.2015 to 30.07.2016. However, the motor cycle was stolen for which FIR no. 021691 dated 06.12.2015 was registered with P.S. Crime Branch, it could not be traced by the police, therefore, untraced report was filed by police in the court of Ld. ACMM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari on 06.02.2016. The complainant approached OP for claim of theft, the surveyor was appointed by OP, it had furnished report with estimate loss on 08.02.2016. However, despite repeated visits to OP, there is no result; the complainant was misbehaved with a very rude manner in bad language by making remarks that 'firstly vehicle was got stolen and then claims are raised'. However, the complainant received letter dated 16.03.2016 of OP, while refusing the claim on the pretext of violation of condition no.1 of the policy. Whereas, the complainant is an illiterate person, he is not aware of any such condition of insurance policy but it was unfortunate incident of theft of his vehicle, for which he did needful. The complainant makes claim of insurance amount of stolen vehicle, apart from compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss and injury, mental pain and agony, losses suffered financially, physically, socially and morally besides cost of litigation.
The complaint is supplemented with copy of RC, motor own damaged claim form, FIR no. 021691/06.12.2015, untraced final report of vehicle by police, depute of surveyor/investigator by OP, and other correspondence between the complainant and the OP, inclusive of repudiation letter dated 16.03.2016.
3. (Case of OP). The OP does not dispute about the insurance policy, its tenure in respect of the motor cycle, however, the OP opposed the claim vehemently that neither there is any deficiency of service nor any kind of harassment by the OP but the complainant has violated terms and conditions no.1 of the policy, by making inordinate delay of 62 days to inform OP about episode of theft (as date of loss was 06.12.2015 but the OP was informed on 08.02.2016), the claim was repudiated by letter dated 16.03.2016. The OP in its reply, refers case of Bijender Singh Vs. National Insurance Company, relied upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha- Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 dod on 17.08.2010 (SC), that the respondent was duty bound to inform the petitioner about the theft of the vehicle immediately after incident, since the petitioner has legitimate right to get conducted appropriate enquiry. Similarly, reliance is placed on Ranglal vs. United India Insurance Company (RP No. 1362 of 2011, dod 01.09.2011). Further, reliance is placed on National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh III 2003 CPJ 77 NC), that delay of intimate of theft to the police and to the insurance company was held violation of policy condition and it cannot be construed deficiency of services on the part of insurance company. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The reply is annexed with insurance policy (two wheeler package).
4.1 (Replication of complainant) : . The complainant filed rejoinder and opposed the complaint vehemently that there is no substance in the allegations in written statement. Moreover, the condition no. 1 has been wrongly referred and invoked, since condition no. 1 pertains to accident loss or damages but the present complaint is of loss of theft of motor cycle. The claim was wrongly declined and the complaint is correct.
4.1 (Evidence of parties) - The complainant Shri Gaurav filed his affidavit of evidence, which is on the pattern of complaint along with documents.
4.2 The OP was also given opportunity to lead evidence, however, as per the proceedings, the OP opted not to file evidence.
5 (Final hearing) . The complainant as well as OP filed their written arguments, it is reiteration of their respective case, which was put by them in the pleadings by the parties as well as in evidence by the complainant, apart from the case law referred. It does not required to reproduce the rival contentions as the same will be dealt appropriately.
6.1 (Findings) - The contention of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record. On plain pleading of the case of the parties, it is undisputed fact that motor cycle was insured by the complainant with the OP, the theft of vehicle took place during the currency of insurance policy, the police could not trace the motor cycle despite investigation in FIR, which result into filing of untraced report.
However, the OP contends that there is delay of 62 days in informing the OP of theft of the motor cycle, which is violation of condition no. 1 of the policy and OP further relies upon Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Roop Lal Dangi II (2017) CPJ 83 (NC) dod 24.03.2017, in which seven days delay of information of theft of vehicle, was considered violation of policy condition as during delay of seven days , the vehicle can be dismantled and sold and it can be taken out of territory of the country. On the other side, complainant counters the plea, while relying upon Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & antr. VIII 2017 SLT 654 dod 04.10.2017 (SC), wherein it was held that immediately after theft of vehicle, the appellant went to police, apart from searching the vehicle. There was sufficient explanation and it can be considered. In the present case the complainant had lodged the report immediately.
6.2. By comparing the rival contention, so far condition no. 1 is concerned (already reproduced in paragraph 1.2 above), being relied upon by the OP, ex-facie pertains to accidental loss and damages, the present case is not of accidental loss but loss by theft of motor-cycle. Moreover, the complainant had immediately informed the police, FIR no. 021691 was registered on 06.12.2015 but vehicle remained untraced and final report was furnished in the court by the police subsequently. Then complainant came to OP for making the claim. The circumstances are speaking themselves that the complainant informed the State machinery and the police came into action by registering the FIR of cognizable offence u/s 379 IPC. Therefore, OP cannot derive any benefit, since police was informed immediately after theft. The circumstances proved are in favour of the complainant. The complainant has proved the complaint that despite risk of theft covered under the policy, this claim was not considered by the OP. OP had opted not to led evidence without stating reasons and despite opportunity was given. There is not evidence by OP to rebut the case of compainanant.
6.3 As per insurance policy along with policy schedule cum certificate of insurance, the vehicle was insured for IDV of Rs. 50,641/-, and being complete loss by theft, the complainant is held entitled for claim of this amount of Rs. 50,641/- against OP.
6.4 The complainant has also claimed compensation and litigation costs. The complainant has not established his source of income as well as income, therefore, considering the circumstances, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for suffering trauma of mental pain and agony is allowed in his favour and against the OP. Cost of Rs. 5,000/- is also allowed in his favour and against the OP.
7. In view of the above, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP, while directing the OP to pay Rs. 50,641/- to the complainant being sum assured, apart from compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The amount shall be payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and in case the amount is not paid within this stipulated period, the complainant shall be entitled for simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the realization of amount.
8. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
9: Announced on this 3rd May, 2023 [वैशाख 13 , साका 1945].
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
