Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/430/2017

BALBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

SWARAN SINGH MANHAS

19 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

                (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No                 267/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     04-10-2016

 Date of Decision         02-05-2018

 

Balbir Singh,

S/O Late Sh.Atma Singh,

R/O Panthal,Katra,

Tehsil & Distt.Reasi.

                                                                                                                                                    Complainant

                      V/S

1.New India Assurance Company Ltd.

  Through its Manager Shalamar Road,

  Jammu.

2.New India Assurance Company Ltd.

  Through its Manager BKDG-87,M.G.Road Fort,

  Mumbai-400001.

                                                                                                                                                   Opposite parties

CORAM:-

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                       -  Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Swaran Singh Manhas,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Jugal Kishore,Advocate for Ops,present.

 

                                                    ORDER

               Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant said to have insured his motor cycle, bearing registration,No.JK02AW-1274, with OP under policy No.35070631140100002416 valid from 21-11-2014 to 22-12-2015(Annexures-A&B).Complainant alleges that on 06-03-2015,his son parked insured motor cycle near Gym,namely,P&P Fitness Club,Opposite CRPF Centre,Bantalab,Jammu,but when he came back did not found insured motor cycle at the place of parking. That then son of complainant,namely,Neeraj Jamwal went to the office of OP1 at Shalamar Road, Jammu for issuance of duplicate insurance certificate as the original insurance certificate had also been stolen alongwith motorcycle and the concerned official of OP 1 told his son to firstly lodge the FIR, then duplicate insurance certificate can be issued. According to complainant, on next day his son alongwith his counsin,namely,Pankaj Manhas went to Police Post Chinore Jammu in whose jurisdiction the theft had taken place and gave a written application for lodging the missing report of theft of motorcycle. The concerned police officials at the Police Post told his son that they will lodge the FIR. Complainant further submitted that then Neeraj Jamwal after final examination in Ist week of August,2015 went to Police Post Chinore,Jammu to take the copy of FIR, but no FIR had been lodged till date. The son of complainant requested them to lodge FIR, but the concerned police officials told him that the FIR can be lodged only after the direction from the competent court of law. That on,18-08-2015 complainant, who hails from Panthal Tehsil & Distt.Reasi came to Saddar Court,Janipur Jammu moved  an application under section 156(3)Cr.P.C.seeking direction  to Incharge Police Station and the Honble Court was pleased to issue direction to lodge FIR in the matter and on the direction of Hon’ble Court, an FIR bearing 263/2015 was lodged on 23-08-2015,copy of FIR and final report are annexed as Annexures C&D.Despite completion of all formalities,OPs did not settle the claim. Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant served legal notice to Ops copy of notice and postal receipt are annexed as Annexures E&F and on 16-09-2016,counsel of the complainant has received letter from Ops wherein OP1 has stated that they have already communicated to the insured vide registered letter dated 02-06-2016.It is important to mention here that after the expiry of 15 days of notice, the Ops have failed to settle the claim of complainant and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,prays for reimbursement of sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(i.e. the value of the vehicle at the time of theft)and in addition also prays for compensation of Rs.75,000/-including  litigation expenses.

                           On the other hand,OPs filed version and while denying its liability to indemnify the complainant, went onto submit that incident of theft took place on, 06-03-2015 and no FIR in respect of same was lodged with the concerned Police Station till 23-08-2015.Further no intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle was given to the Ops,immediately after alleged occurrence of theft of insured vehicle. The claim intimation letter was submitted by the complainant for the first time on,26-08-2015 i.e. after 5 ½ months of the alleged occurrence. The complainant thus has violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and the claim in question is thus not payable. It is admitted that complainant was the registered owner of motorcycle in question and the same was insured with the OP Company. It is submitted that the insurance policy is a contract between the insured and insured and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions. It is submitted that no report stands registered with the concerned Police Station regarding the missing or theft of insured vehicle on,06-03-2015 or on the next day.  According to OPs,no copy of receipt of alleged written application submitted to the Police Station Chinore regarding the theft of the insured vehicle has been enclosed with the complaint. Rest of the contents are denied by Ops.

                        Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Neeraj Jamwal and Pankaj Manhas,respectively.Complainant has placed on record copy of certificate of insurance cum Policy schedule, copy of certificate of insurance, copy of FIR, copy of final report, copy of legal notice and copy of letter dated 16-09-2016 issued by Ops to counsel for complainant.

                         On the other hand,OPs adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of V.K.Anand Senior Divisional Manager New India Insurance Co.Ltd.OPs have placed on record copy of claim intimation letter, copy of FIR and copy of letter issued by OP to complainant and copy of  Motor Insurance Claim Form                  

                       We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                           At the outset, we would like to place on record that in so far as insurance of motor cycle and its theft during currency of insurance, same are not in dispute. There is also no dispute regarding duty to inform the insurer immediately  in the event of incident.

                   The allegation of complainant is that insured motor cycle was stolen away on, 06-03-2015,around 8.00 to 8.30 pm,while as, complainant, inter alia, informed OP on,26-08-2015.

                   On the other hand,OPs took defence that The claim intimation letter was submitted by the complainant for the first time on,26-08-2015 i.e. after 5 ½ months of the alleged occurrence. The complainant thus has violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and the claim in question is thus not payable.

                      Now the question for consideration in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether the OPs,Insurance Company is justified and legally correct in not entertaining the claim of the complainant on the basis of late intimation given regarding incident of theft.

                   The undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainant had insured his motor cycle bearing registration No. JK02AW-1274, with OP under policy No.35070631140100002416 valid from 21-11-2014 to 22-12-2015.The insured vehicle was stolen on 6-03-2015 near Gym,namely,P&P Fitness Club,Opposite CRPF Centre,Bantalab,Jammu.That the son of complainant,namely,Neeraj Jamwal went to the office of OP1 at Shalamar Road, Jammu for issuance of duplicate insurance certificate as the original insurance certificate had also been stolen alongwith motorcycle and the concerned official of OP 1 told his son to firstly lodge the FIR, then duplicate insurance certificate can be issued. According to complainant, on next day his son alongwith his cousin,namely,Pankaj Manhas went to Police Post Chinore Jammu in whose jurisdiction the theft had taken place and gave a written application for lodging the missing report of theft of motorcycle. The concerned police officials at the Police Post told his son that they will lodge the FIR. Complainant further submitted that then Neeraj Jamwal after final examination in Ist week of August,2015 went to Police Post Chinore,Jammu to take the copy of FIR, but no FIR had been lodged till date. The son of complainant requested them to lodge FIR, but the concerned police officials told him that the FIR can be lodged only after the direction from the competent court of law. That on,18-08-2015 complainant, who hails from Panthal Tehsil & Distt.Reasi came to Saddar Court,Janipur Jammu moved  an application under section 156(3)Cr.P.C.seeking direction  to Incharge Police Station and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue direction to lodge FIR in the matter and on the direction of Hon’ble Court, an FIR bearing 263/2015 was lodged on 23-08-2015 The complainant submitted the claim to Ops, but the same was not entertained on the ground that the complainant had not informed the OP immediately after the incident of theft, as the OPs,Insurance Company in their reply has justified the repudiation of insurance claim of complainant by relying upon Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy. Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy provides for giving immediate notice in writing to OP after the occurrence of any incident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. The said condition is reproduced as under:

       1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.

                 The Honble High Court of J&K in case New India Assurance Company V/S Tarlok Singh has held that in a case where the insured has informed the Insurance Company after three months of theft of the vehicle, the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company is justified and the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the loss caused to the insured due to theft of the vehicle.

              The Hon’ble National Commission in case Rahul Tanwar V/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.cited by the learned counsel for the OP has held that  as per terms and conditions of the policy, it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate the OP regarding theft of the vehicle immediately and as the complainant failed to inform or place any written information on record, the Insurance Company is justified in repudiating the insurance claim.

           The Honble National Commission in another case Davendra Singh V/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,& Ors.III (2003)CPJ 77 (NC) has held that the repudiation of  insurance claim on the ground that the theft of the vehicle was reported to the police after four days and to the Insurance Company after about a month is justified.

 

                                   The proposition of law laid down in the cited cases is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore in view of aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the preposition of law laid down in the above cited case laws, it is clearly established that the complainant has violated condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy for not informing the OP immediately after the incident of theft of his insured vehicle. The OPs are thus not liable to pay insurance claim to the complainant. The facts and evidence on file show that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.It is also established that the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and as such the complaint is dismissed and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                            (Khalil Choudhary)                               

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

02-05-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                               

  Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

.               

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member