Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/272/2014

Parveen Kumar S/o.Kura Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Reen

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

 

                                                                                              Complaint No.  272 of 2014.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 12.06.2014

                                                                                              Date of decision:   13.07.2017

 

Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Kura Ram aged about 42 years R/o H.No. 1264, Yamuna Gali, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional Office, New Fountain Chowk, Workshop road, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                                                                       … Respondent.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER   

 

Present:           Sh. G.S.Reen, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

          Sh. V.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Parveen Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to pay a sum assured of Rs. 42,270/- on account of theft of motorcycle Hero Honda and also to pay  compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had got insured his Motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor make 2013 bearing registration No. HR02AB-8769 for a sum of Rs. 42,270/- vide insurance policy no. 35100731126203414025 having validity from 14.3.2013 to 13.3.2014. The said motorcycle was stolen on 02.09.2013 when the complainant parked his motorcycle in front of his shop after locking the same and went outside the shop for his personal work and when the complainant come back after half an hour, he saw his motorcycle was not there. He tried to locate the same here and there, but could not search out the same, so ultimately he informed the police and narrated the entire story. The local police of P.S. Sadar Yamuna Nagar after investigating the matter, lodged a F.I.R No.178 dated 10.09.2013 U/s 379 IPC. The police of P.S. Sadar Yamuna Nagar failed to trace out the motor cycle in question and ultimately, untraceable report (Annexure C-5) was submitted in the court. After that complainant got the copy of the same and submitted the same with the OP Insurance Company for settlement of his claim of theft of Motorcycle and also completed all other formalities but the OP company did not settle the claim of complainant and finally vide letter date 15.03.2014, the claim of the complainant was repudiated illegally, arbitrarily, without any cogent reason and on the false ground. The act and conduct of the OP Company is highly negligent and deficient in services and on account of said reason, the complainant has suffered great mental agony, harassment and financial loss for which the complainant is entitled for compensation. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is neither legally maintainable nor tenable in the eye of law, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company, there is no locus standi to file the present complaint, complainant has suppressed the material things from the Forum and on merit it has been stated that the complainant lodged the F.I.R bearing no. 178 after a period of 8 days i.e. on 10-09-2013 and office of the OP Insurance Company was informed on 01-10-2013 i.e. after a period of 1(one) month whereas the motorcycle in question was allegedly stolen on 02-09-2013, which violate the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy in question because as per terms and conditions, the complainant was duty bound to inform the police as well as OP Insurance Company immediately, as such the claim of complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter date 15.03.2014 (Annexure R-4) and complaint is unfounded, misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company and prayer for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of F.I.R. No. 178 dated 10-09-2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of untraceable report as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of Repudiation Letter as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Parveen Arora, Administrative Officer, NIC as Annexure RA, and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance Policy as Annexure R-1, photocopy of F.I.R as Annexure R-2, photocopy of statement of complainant as Annexure R-3, photocopy of repudiation letter dated 15.03.2014 as Annexure R-4, and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the motorcycle of the complainant was stolen by unknown person and he lodged his claim immediately after completing all the formalities but the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and flimsy ground. Even the OP cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant as whole and as per citation of the Hon’ble Apex Court claim should be settled on Non Standard Basis by making 75% of the amount in case of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and referred the case laws titled as Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1) CPC page 653 (S.C.), B. Shantilal & Co. (deceased) & others versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another, 2012(1) CPC page 55 (N.C) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhupinder Singh, 2013(2) CPC Page 314 (N.C.)

8.                     On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the op Insurance Company has argued that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure C-5/R-4) because the complainant has violates the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy as he informed the police on 10.09.2013 (Copy of FIR Annexure C-3/RR-2) after a gap of 8 days and informed the op insurance company after a period of 1(one) month i.e. on 01.10.2014 vide letter dated 01.10.2013 (Annexure R-3). Learned counsel or Op referred the case law titled as Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagchand Saini, 1(2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C.) have weight as delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash vs. National Insurance company Ltd. 2012(III) CPJ Page 59 has observed that “ Insurance-theft of vehicle-Delay in intimation-Claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-terms and conditions of insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity-Even delay of few days in not intimating Insurance Company about incident of theft is fatal-insured looses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regarding to compliance of terms and conditions of policy-impugned order upheld”.

9.                      Further in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 it has been observed in the case of theft “where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.”  

10.                   In another case titled as HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagchand Saini (supra) observed that Insurance-Theft of vehicle- Delay in intimation-Violation of conditions of policy-Claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Delay of about 4 months in giving intimation to Insurance Company- Insurance contract is a contract of indemnity-Violation of conditions has to be taken into account- Complainant is not entitled for any compensation even on ‘non-standard’ basis- Complaint dismissed. Revision petition allowed.

 11                   Further in case titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil (N.C) has observed that Insurance Claim-theft of car- Insured intimated the insurer regarding theft of his car after 39 days of the accident-Held- Insured has violated the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy-revision petition allowed.                        

12.                   In the present case, it is admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the FIR bearing No.178 (Annexure C-3/R-2) was registered on 10.09.2013 i.e. after 8 days but the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint when information was given to the OP. However, he has written in his complaint that the information was given to the OP immediately but this plea is not supported by any credible evidence because from the perusal of Annexure R-3, it reveals that the intimation was given to the insurance company on 01.10.2013 i.e. after a delay of 1(one) month. The plea taken by the complainant that the intimation was given to the police on the same day but the police registered the FIR on 10.09.2013 is also not tenable, as it is settled law that normally, document does not lie but man may do. Even if we presume this, even then it is not enough to make the insurance company liable to pay the claim which was lodged with it after a gap of 1(one) Month. On this point reliance can be placed on case law titled as Surender Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited 1(2013) CPJ page 741 National Commission because in that case the vehicle was stolen on 20.5.2008 and FIR was lodged on the same day but it has been specifically mentioned that it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate about the theft to the Insurance Company immediately. Further the OP relied upon the case law titled as Kulwant Singh vs. The Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, 2015 (1) CLT page 106 wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim-Delay in FIR-Theft informed after 3 days to police-Breach of Terms of Insurance Whether insurance claim can be decided on non standard basis-Held-No- Such a delay can be fatal as within three days the vehicle could have been driven long distance even across the border of the country or could have been dismantled and sold to the scrap dealer- By delaying the information of theft to the police, the insured had acted against the interest of insurer and this violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused which justifies the repudiation of claim by the respondent insurance company. The authorities (supra) tendered by complainant are not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the authorities (supra) tendered by the OP are fully applicable in the present case.

13                    In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and opposite party have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure C-5/R-4).  As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated 13. 07. 2017.

 

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                          PRESIDENT, DCDRF

                                                                                          YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

                 

                      (VEENA RANI SEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                       MEMBER                                                  MEMBER