Haryana

StateCommission

A/910/2015

NAZAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

DHEERAJ NARULA

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      910 of 2015

Date of Institution:      20.10.2015

Date of Decision :       30.03.2016

 

Nazar Singh s/o Sh. Jagraj Singh, Resident of Village Odhan, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager, Sirsa.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated September 14^th, 2005, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.      Nazar Singh-Complainant/appellant, got his truck bearing registration No.RJ-13/7213, insured with National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) from October 3^rd, 2008 to October 2^nd, 2009, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-4). The Insured Declared Value (‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.5,72,468/-.

3.      On February 14^th, 2009, the truck was stolen in the area of Village Kitlana, District Bhiwani. The complainant informed the Police of Police Station, Sadar Bhiwani and the Insurance Company. The Police did not register First Information Report (F.I.R.). The complainant submitted an application dated February 17^th, 2009 (Exhibit C-9) to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. Thereafter, the Police registered F.I.R. No.72 on February 18^th, 2009 (Annexure-A) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police submitted untraced report Exhibit C-8. The Insurance Company appointed Investigator. The Investigator submitted report (Exhibit R-3). The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the ignition key was left in the truck and there was delay of four days in lodging of the F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Thus, the complainant violated conditions No.1 and 5 of the Insurance Policy.  It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. 

5.      Indisputably, the truck was insured with the Insurance Company and stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  In the F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) it has been mentioned that the truck was stolen when its two tyres got punctured and the driver had parked it in front of a hotel for getting the tyres repaired and from there the truck was stolen.

6.      The Insurance Company except the report of the investigator and statements purported to be made by complainant and his son, allegedly recorded by the investigator, has not produced any other cogent evidence. The Insurance Company has not examined the investigator to establish that the statements were recorded by him. In the absence of any evidence to prove the same, it has little value. No presumption can be raised that these were the statements of the complainant and his son.

7.      In Manikant vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2012(2)CLT 621, Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“…Producing a document in Court does not by itself constitute proving the document. It has to be backed by credible evidence. In the instant case, no evidence was led to prove the Surveyor’s Report in the absence of which the Surveyor’s Report has little evidentiary value. In view of these facts, we are unable to accept the contention of the Respondent that he has been able to show substantial and credible evidence that the tractor was being used for transporting goods and thus violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driving licence. The State Commission by solely relying on this document erroneously concluded that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and that the claim was rightly repudiated.”

8.      Even otherwise, F.I.R. (Annexure-A) was recorded on the statement of complainant. There is no mention in the F.I.R. that the key was left in the ignition. This being so, it cannot be said that the ignition key was left in the truck.

9.      Coming now to the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that there was delay of four days in lodging of FIR and giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  The complainant has placed on record application dated February 17^th, 2009 (Exhibit C-9) submitted by him to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani mentioning therein that he had given an application No.6509 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani informing him about the theft of the vehicle but the Police did not register the FIR on the ground that theft had taken place in the area of Police Station, Dadri.  So, it was the duty of the Police Station, Dadri to register the FIR.  He approached the Police Station, Dadri but the Police Station, Dadri also refused to lodge the FIR asking him to get the FIR registered in Police Station, Sadar, Bhiwani.  Thereafter, he filed the application (Exhibit C-9) to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani and on his direction, FIR No.72 dated February 18^th, 2009 (Annexure A) was registered in Police Station, Sadar, Bhiwani.  In these circumstances, it cannot be said from any angle that there was delay in lodging of the FIR because complainant has explained the delay.  So, the contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled.

10.    The judgments Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. versus United India Insurance Company and another, 2011(1) CLT 485 (S.C.) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its duly Constituted attorney Manager versus Shyam Sunder, 2014(2) C.P.R. 387 (N.C.) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company are not applicable to the instant case. In Suraj Mal’s case it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that in construing the terms of a contract of Insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance. In Shyam Sunder’s case it was held that a party who does not come with clean hands, cannot get relief from Consumer Forum, which is not the case before this Commission.

11.    In view of the above, it is established on the record that complainant’s claim was wrongly repudiated and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant.

12.    Hence, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.5,72,468/- (IDV) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization.

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

 

 

Announced 30.03.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL