Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.04.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to settle the claim as per the norms of Insurance Policy and also direct to pay compensation to the complainant.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
It is the case of the complainant that he had bought a Mahindra Bolero Jeep from Priyadarshi Motor Pvt. Ltd. on 11.04.2009. The aforesaid jeep was registered as BR – 01PA – 3080 and was hypothecated with the Bank of India commercial and personal branch, Patna. The aforesaid vehicle was comprehensively insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. 170803/31/09/610000235 for the period of 13.04.2009 to 12.04.2010. The aforesaid policy have been annexed by the complainant as annexure – 2 of this complaint petition.
The registration of the aforesaid vehicle was done on 14.05.2009 by D.T.O., Patna as will appear vide annexure – 3. The complainant has further asserted that in night of 19/20.01.2010. the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from the residence of the complainant and complainant informed this fact to the police and thereafter an F.I.R. bearing Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 15/10 dated 20.01.2010 U/s 379 IPC was registered. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet with remark that “ Case found true but clueless.”
The aforesaid F.I.R. and charge sheet has been annexed with this complaint petition by annexure – 4 and annexure – 4A.
It further transpires that vide order dated 09.07.2010 the learned C.J.M., Patna accepted the final report as will appear from annexure – 5. The D.T.O., Patna was also informed about the theft vide annexure – 6.
It is further case of the complainant that at the earliest opportunity the National Insurance Co. Ltd. ( Opposite party no. 1 ) was intimated about the theft.
The grievance of the complainant is that after a long exchange of letter and correspondence the Insurance company finally vide letter dated 27.03.2011 declared the claim of the complainant as no claim despite 14 months of lodging the claim. In repudiation letter ( vide annexure – 1 ) no specific document (s) is mentioned which is relevant and most vital for the claim of the complainant.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement has been filed stating therein that the complainant did not lodge any claim before opposite party no. 1 rather the claim was lodged by Bank vide letter dated 21.01.2010 which was received on 27.01.2010 by opposite party i.e. after delay of 8 days which is against the condition of the policy. The insurance company vide letter dated 10.01.2011 ( annexure – i of written statement ) requested the complainant to supply a copy of permit as the vehicle was registered in question was commercial but the complainant (vide annexure – ii of the written statement) has expressed his inability in depositing the same.
It has been further asserted that as the complainant did not submit the permit and did not explain with valid document the cause of delay in not intimating the insurance company, the insurance company has repudiated the claim vide annexure – 1 which is just and proper.
Fact asserted by the parties have been mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs briefly.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record.
From bare perusal of complaint petition it is crystal clear that the aforesaid vehicle was stolen and after that police had investigated the matter and submitted the final form which was accepted by learned C.J.M., Patna.
The opposite parties ( 1 and 2 ) have accepted themselves that the matter was reported by the Bank by delay of 8 days. None of the annexures annexed by the complainant in this complaint petition have been denied by opposite party no. 1 and 2.
From perusal of annexure – 1 of written statement it appears that the opposite parties have asked for permit and from annexure – ii of written statement it appears that the complainant stated that same has been stolen with the aforesaid vehicle.
The very fact that the aforesaid vehicle was registered by the D.T.O., Patna and the permit was issued has not been denied.
It has been asserted by the complainant that as there was delay of 8 days in the intimation of theft and the permit was not made available for being stolen with the aforesaid vehicle will not authorize the opposite parties to reject the claim of the complainant straight away.
It is needless to say that the in several citations it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there must be direct nexux between the cause of loss and violation of the terms and condition of the policy. In other citation i.e. in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008 (3PLJR) 417 it has been again settled by the Hon’ble Court that in the case of theft of the vehicle breach of condition is not germane and insurance company is liable to compensate the owner of the vehicle.
In view of the fact we find and hold that by rejecting the claim of complainant vide annexure – 1 of the complaint petition the opposite parties have committed deficiency on their part.
In view of fact and circumstances stated we hereby direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis and as such the complainant is entitled to receive 75% of total claim covered by annexure – 2 of complaint petition within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the above mentioned 75% of the claim amount till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
