Haryana

Karnal

CC/213/2019

Leela Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Verma

29 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 213 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.22.04.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 29.01.2020

 

Leela Ram aged about 45 years son of Ratti Ram caste Brahaman resident of village Sagga Tehsil and District Karnal. Adhar no.537940575696.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional office at Karnal through its Divisional Manager, opposite Bus Stand near Andhra Bank Karnal.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Sandeep Verma Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Manjul Mishra Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of Hero Honda (Delux) Motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05AV-7795, which was got insured with OP, vide policy no.426013311710001641, valid from 30.08.2017 to 29.08.2018. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs.44470/-. On 11.12.2017 the said motorcycle of the complainant was stolen from the house of the complainant qua which an FIR no.0002/18 was registered under section 379 IPC in Police Station Taraori District Karnal. Immediately, after the theft of the vehicle, the complainant lodged his claim with the OP and requested for paying him the compensation amount. The complainant completed all the formalities as required by the OP but till date OP has failed to release the claim of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; cause of action; maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not filed any claim form with the OP yet today and the FIR has been lodged on 03.01.2018 i.e. after 23 days from the date of stolen of the motorcycle, the date of incident is 11.12.2017 which is a violation of terms and condition of the policy and as such OP is not liable to any compensation to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 11.12.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.O1 and closed the evidence on 17.01.2020.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR-05AV-7795 with OP, vide policy no.426013311710001641, valid from 30.08.2017 to 29.08.2018. On 11.12.2017 the said motorcycle of the complainant was stolen from the house of the complainant qua which an FIR no.0002/18 was registered under section 379 IPC in Police Station Taraori District Karnal. Immediately, after the theft of the vehicle, the complainant lodged his claim with the OP and requested the OP so many times to release the claim of the motorcycle but OP did not pay any claim to the complainant.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs, in brief, is that complainant has not filed any claim form with the OP yet today and the FIR has been lodged on 03.01.2018 i.e. after 23 days from the date of stolen of the motorcycle, the date of incident is 11.12.2017 which is a violation of terms and condition of the policy and as such OP is not liable to any compensation to the complainant.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration no.HR-05AV-7795 was got insured from the OP. On 11.12.2017, the said motorcycle was stolen from the house of the complainant and in this regard complainant lodged FIR Ex.C3 on 03.01.2018. As per the version of the complainant, intimation with regard to theft was given to the OP by the complainant and he submitted his claim alongwith all the documents to the OP but till date OP did not settle the claim of the complainant.

9.             On the other hand, the version of the OP is that the alleged incident took place on 11.12.2017 and FIR got lodged on 03.01.2018 with the delay of 23 days which is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Further, no claim has been lodged by the complainant with the OP till date.

10.            The complainant has given a reminder Ex.C4 dated 19.02.2018 with regard to theft of the vehicle and submission of the claim. The said reminder sent through registered post and the receipt of which is Ex.C5. It has proved from Ex.C5 that the complainant has already submitted the claim with the OP. Thus, the plea taken by the OP is untenable.

11.            To wriggle out the contention of the OP, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant initially tried to search the motorcycle at his own level and when the same could not be traced out then the matter was reported to the police immediately. In authority Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and anr. in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in which Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.11 of the order has specifically mentioned that it is a common knowledge that a person who has lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holder in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.  In view of above authority, there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant, but the OP refused to settle his claim on false ground of delay for lodging FIR and not submission the claim with OP. In the present case complainant gave the intimation to the police or OP but police lodge the FIR after 23 days. Hence, there is no fault on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. No other point argued by the OPs.

12.                        In view of authority of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, considered the question regarding delay in intimation of theft of vehicle in United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017.  In that case there was delay of two months and five days in intimation of theft to the insurance company. Under those circumstances it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy including limitation as to use the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis. Accordingly the insurance company was directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. 75% of the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Further in case  Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II(2010) CPJ 9 (SC) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Insurance-Non-standard Settlement-Terms of policy violated-Vehicle insured for personal use, used on hire-Claim repudiated by insurer-Complaint dismissed by Consumer Forum-Order upheld in appeal-Revision against order dismissed-Civil appeal filed-Repudiation of claim in toto unjustified-Settlement of claim on non-standard basis directed.

13.            In the present case complainant violated the terms of the policy regarding delay in intimation to the OP and lodging the FIR. It is submitted that claim of the complainant has not been repudiated in toto on the said ground. Hence, the claim of the complainant was decided on non-standard basis and he is entitled for 75% of the insured amount.

14.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.33,352/- i.e. 75% of the insured amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim  of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.01.2020

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member