Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 157
Instituted on : 05.07.2013.
Decided on : 16.07.2015.
Manoj Kumar s/o Sh. Raj Singh r/o Vill. Sunariya Kalan, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its D.M.Div. Office, Narayana Complex, Rohtak Distt. Rohtak(Insurance Co. of the motorcycle bearing its Regd. No.A/F HR12Q/1379.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sanjeev Barak, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.D.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of a motorcycle bearing its registration No.HR12Q/1379 which was fully insured with the opposite party for the period from 21.07.2010 to 20.07.2010 vide Policy no.35100731106200714713 dated 21.07.2010. It is averred that on the ill fated day of 06.09.2010 the complainant went to water his fields and parked his motorcycle nearby but some unknown person stolen his motorcycle. He tried to search his vehicle but was unable to trace out. He informed the police and FIR No.245 dated 10.09.2010 was registered. It is averred that complainant informed the opposite party about the theft of his insured vehicle on 09.09.2010 and he was asked to bring an untraced report from the court. After getting the Untraced report dated 20.05.2011 complainant again asked the opposite party to settle his theft claim but the opposite party declined to settle the claim of the complainant on the ground that the claim file of said motorcycle has been lost. Complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite party on 18.08.2012 but to no effect. It is averred that despite his repeated requests, the claim has not been settled by the opposite party. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim of Rs.38164/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant did not lodge any claim nor given any intimation in the office of opposite party so the matter was not got investigated by the opposite party. It is averred that the FIR was lodged after 4 days of theft. It is denied that the complainant had given intimation to the opposite party on 09.09.2010. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. As per cover note Ex.C10, the vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.38164/-. It is also not disputed that the theft of vehicle had taken place on 06.09.2010 and the FIR Ex.C6 was lodged on 10.09.2010. After the theft complainant filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its reply has submitted that the complainant neither lodged any claim nor given any intimation in the office of opposite party. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after 4 days of the theft and that the vehicle was not registered in the Registering Authority on the date of theft. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2015(1)CLT106 titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. The Managing Director, United India Ins. Co. Ltd. and 2013(3)CLT 77 titled Lakhan Pal V.s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that no doubt the vehicle in question was stolen on 06.09.2010 and FIR was lodged on 10.06.2009 i.e. after 3 days and as per intimation letter Ex.C5 the intimation to the company was given on 09.09.2010. Copy of R.C. Ex.C9 is placed on file which is valid from 30.08.2010 i.e. before the theft of vehicle. Copy of untraced report Ex.C7. Complainant has also served a legal notice Ex.C1 and has placed on record delivery receipts of the same through letters Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 of postal department and Receipts Ex.C4. Copy of document Ex.C11 showing the date of registration of vehicle i.e. 30.08.2010 is also placed on file. It is also on record that ld. Counsel for the opposite party company as per order dated 05.02.2014 has stated at bar that he has received the documents from the complainant which was required in this case vide application dated 02.01.2014. It is observed that despite submitting all the required documents and service of legal notice, the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the opposite party which shows the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2013(3) CLT 541 titled as M/s Poongodhai Textiles(P) Ltd. Vs. UIIC whereby Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Commission, Chennai has held that: “The opposite party though was in possession of all the materials, failed to reply to the claim petition and legal notice of the complainant-only when the complaint was filed before Commission, chosen to reply-This itself will constitute deficiency in service and negligence”. As per 2014(1)CLT 567 titled Upper India Carriers Vs. M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission, Chandigarh has held that: “Despite submission of report by the Surveyor, the opposite parties have not taken decision for 1½ years, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be justified and the complaint, on this ground, cannot be said to be premature”. Regarding the delayed intimation of 4 days to the police and to the opposite party, as per 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”, as per 2014-4(CLXXVI), 861 titled as Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ms. Monu Yadav Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that : “ Theft of car-delay in lodging claim with Insurance Company of 54 days-Instructions dated 20.09.2011, issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to all the insurance companies-as per the said instructions, this condition should not prevent the settlement of genuine claims particularly when there is delay in giving intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances-The companies were advised that they must not repudiate such claims on the ground of delay, especially when the police has been promptly informed in this regard”, as per 2014(3)CLT447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Repudiation- On the ground that there was delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R. and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?-Held-No-FIR lodged and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company-Thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced-it was a genuine claim of the complainant-Appeal dismissed” and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the law cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.38164/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand one hundred sixty four only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.07.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Form of NOC from Finance Company, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
