DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  55

                                                Instituted on:    03.02.2017

                                                Decided on:       19.05.2017

Jarnail Kaur W/o Balwinder Singh, resident of H.No.391, Suresh Arewali Gali, Sekhupura Basti, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bank of Baroda Building, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Divisional 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 Ashish Kumar, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Smt. Jarnail Kaur, 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 Indica Vista car bearing registration number PB-13-Y-2319  from the OPs for Rs.2,91,218/- vide insurance policy number 25331031120150031213 for the period from 24.1.2013 to 23.1.2014  by paying the requisite premium of Rs.10,605/-.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen on 22.12.2013 by some unknown persons, of which FIR number 397 dated 22.12.2013 was also lodged at PS City Sangrur.  The intimation of theft was given to the OPs immediately by the complainant and submitted all the required documents. Further case of the complainant is that she received letter dated 14.7.2014 from the OPs along with copies of letters dated 3.4.2014 and 7.5.2014, but the same were never received, wherein it has been alleged that the theft of vehicle has taken place due to negligence of Sukhwinder Singh as he had left the car in starting position while going to fetch waters.  After receipt of the letter dated 25.7.2014, the same was duly replied as the complainant was standing about 5 feet from the place where the car was standing.   Further grievance of the complainant is that OP number 1 issued letter dated 29.12.2014 to the complainant whereby  already sent documents by the complainant were again demanded and the complainant was apprised that his file is being sent to the Regional Office for reconsideration of the 25% deduction.  The complainant has further alleged that he was shocked to receive letter dated 2.2.2016 from OP number 1 whereby it was alleged that due to non submission of the documents sought vide letter dated 29.12.2014, the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim and further the complainant received a letter dated 29.12.2016 from the OP whereby it has been stated that the claim has been repudiated, which is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, 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.2,91,218/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle i.e. 22.12.2013 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs under the policy in question. It is further admitted that after receipt of the intimation dated 22.1.2014 regarding theft of the above said car on 22.12.2013, the OP deputed Shri N.K. Bhalal Detectives and Investigators for investigation of the claim, who submitted his report dated 17.3.2014 and as per the report the theft took place due to the negligence of driver Sukhwider Singh as he left the car in a starting position while he went to fetch water, as such, it is said to be a breach of condition of the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is stated that after receipt of the documents and reply dated 25.7.2014, the OP again entered her claim on sub standard basis by deducting 25% of clam amount as there was negligence and breach of the condition of the policy and requested the insured to send consent letter, untraceable report, latest NCRB report and second key of the car, but the complainant did not submit any documents, as such, the OP company repudiated the claim and informed the insured through registered letter dated 29.12.2016.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-18 documents and affidavit 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 vehicle in question with the OP for Rs.2,91,218/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy which is on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 22.12.2013, of which FIR number 397 dated 22.12.2013 was recorded in PS City Sangrur, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  However, in the present case, the dispute is over the late submission of the intimation about theft of the vehicle to the OP and late intimation of loss of vehicle to the police and that the vehicle was stolen due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle Sukhwinder Singh.

6.             Ex.C-2 is the copy of insurance policy, whereas  Ex.C-3 is the copy of FIR number 397 dated 22.12.2013 lodged with the police of PS City Sangrur regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. 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 accident or loss or damage, whereas the complainant has intimated the OPs after a delay of about one month, whereas the case of the complainant is that the intimation was given to the OP immediately about the theft of the vehicle in question. 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 immediately i.e. on 22.12.2013.  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 and intimated the Op immediately on telephone,  whereas the Op has stated that the complainant intimated it only on 22.1.2014, but no such document is on record that the Op was intimated on 22.1.2014, whereas the FIR was lodged on immediately i.e. on the date of theft i.e. 22.12.2014. 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, but in the present case the police was so quick and the FIR was recorded immediately i.e. on the date of incident of theft.  To support the contention that the complainant immediately intimated the Op, the complainant has produced on record a copy of the FIR Ex.C-3.  Further Ex.C-4 is on record the copy of acceptance of untraced report by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.  Further the OPs have also produced on record the copy of investigation report Ex.OP-4, wherein the investigator has mentioned in its finding that the claim is genuine and may be considered in view of the above mentioned facts.  The learned counsel for the Ops has also produced on record various documents requiring the complainant to submit untraceable report, latest NCRB report, second key of the car and original RC or the car, but the case of the complainant is that he has already submitted all the documents to the OPs.     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.   The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited the decision pronounced by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.16701 of 2013 decided on 26.11.2013 in case titled The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus M/s. Viceroy Car Rental Private Limited and another ,  wherein it has been held that since the claim of the complainant was found to be justified and the vehicle was admittedly insured with the petitioner-company, which was stolen and the incident of theft was immediately reported to the police, as noticed hereinabove. It has never been the case of the insurance company that the claim of the respondent was either bogus or fraudulent. Only objection raised was that the claim was lodged after three months and 9 days and not within the stipulated period of 48 hours, as such, it was held that the delay was not fatal in the circumstances of the case, still further 15% deduction from the total amount of compensation was rightly ordered by Permanent Lok Adalat and that was only because of delayed claim.   Now law to the contrary has been cited.  It is worth mentioning here that the untraced report was also accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.5.2014 the certified copy of the order was issued to the complainant on 7.7.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met  if the claim of the complainant is settled on non standard basis. Admittedly, in the present case the vehicle in question is insured for Rs.2,91,218/-, as such, we feel that if calculated 75% of the amount, it comes to Rs.2,18,413/-.

7.             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.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to complainant an amount of Rs.2,18,413/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 3.2.2017 till realisation.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

9.             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 19, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member