DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  004

                                                Instituted on:    03.01.2017

                                                Decided on:       15.05.2017

Chetu Singh aged about 38 years son of Chanan Singh, resident of village Diwangarh Caimper, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Ghagga Road, Samana, District Patiala through its Branch Manager.

2.             National Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata- 700 071 through its GM/MD.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For Opp.parties                :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Chetu Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his truck (trolla) bearing registration number PB-13-Q-7185  from the OPs for Rs.6,60,000/- vide insurance policy number 401408/31/15/6300001542 for the period from 6.11.2015 to 5.11.2016  by paying the requisite premium of Rs.32,460/-.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the truck in question was stolen on the intervening night of 18/19.12.2015 when it was standing at Jindal Filling Station, Kohrian Road, Diwangarh Caimper. All the documents of truck i.e. RC etc. along with the DL of Ram Pal brother of the complainant were lying inside the truck.  It is further averred that the complainant tried his best to find out the vehicle, but the same was not found, as such the complainant lodged FIR number 184 dated 29.12.2015 under section 379 IPC at PS Dirba regarding the theft of the truck in question.  Thereafter the complainant intimated the Ops immediately about the theft of the truck in question and submitted all the documents.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 09.12.2016, which is said to be wrong and without any basis.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.6,60,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 18/19.12.2015, but the complainant intimated the Ops on 24.12.2015 and the complainant even failed to intimate the police and the complainant only intimated the police on 29.12.2015 after a long delay of ten days, which is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is stated further that the complainant left the vehicle unattended.  Lastly, it has been stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copy of orders, Ex.C-4 copy of certificate of insurance, Ex.C-5 copy of FIR, Ex.C-6 copy of untraced report, Ex.C-7 copy of repudiation letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions of policy, Ex.OP-3 copy of intimation letter and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his truck in question with the OPs.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on the intervening night of 18/19.12.2015, of which FIR number 184 dated 29.12.2015 was recorded in PS Dirba, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the late submission of the intimation about theft of the vehicle to the OPs and late intimation of loss of truck to the police.

6.             Ex.C-4 is the copy of insurance policy, whereas  Ex.C-5 is a copy of FIR lodged with the police of PS Dirba. In the present case, the repudiation of the claim has been done by the OPs on the ground that notice was to be given to the Ops immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage, whereas the complainant has intimated the Ops after a delay of six days. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that since the complainant was finding the vehicle here and there, and when he did not found the same, he lodged the FIR with the police.  Now, the question for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount or not.  It is on the record that the complainant tried his best to find out the vehicle here and there for a period of five days and lastly on 24.12.2015 he intimated the Ops about the theft of the vehicle, which fact is also admitted by the Ops in their written reply, whereas the FIR was lodged on 29.12.2015. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had to intimate the police and it is the police only who had to lodge the FIR at their own and in this respect, the complainant is unable to take any action to lodge the FIR.    Further the complainant has contended that since he was finding the vehicle here and there, as such, he did not get the claim registered with the police immediately. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 (HR), wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sukhram Kashyap versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA/13/272, decided on 11.4.2013 by the Chhattisgarh State Commission, wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) has been relied upon, wherein it has been held that the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of policy, the appellant Insurance company ought to have settled the claim on ‘non standard basis”.   Further we find that the OPs are also deficient in rendering service by not considering the merits of the claim and in repudiating the whole claim of the complainant. To support such a contention further, reliance can also be placed on The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Ashish Kumar Chauhan, Appeal No.FA/12/110, instituted on 29.2.2012, decided on 19.7.2012 by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, wherein in similar circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble State Commission ordered the insurance company to pay 75% of the claim amount.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has also cited Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Shri Anand Singh 2016(2) CPR 423 (NC), wherein it has been held that the complainant has not been able to explain any unavoidable circumstances which prevented him from giving written intimation about theft to the insurance company, which is said to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and the repudiation of the claim was said to be justified.  But, we feel that in the present case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) is fully applicable.

8.             Accordingly, we feel that the OPs should atleast settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis, whereas in the present case the Ops have repudiated the claim in whole vide letter dated 09.12.2016, Ex.C-7. Admittedly, in the present case the vehicle in question is insured for Rs.6,60,000/-, as such, we feel that if calculated 75% of the amount, it comes to Rs.4,95,000/-.

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

10.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,95,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 03.01.2017 till realisation.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses. We also direct the complainant to execute the necessary documents, if any for transfer of the vehicle in question as required by the OPs.

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        May 15, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member