BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 259 of 2016                                                                         

                                                         Date of Institution         :    28.9.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    26.9.2017.

Gurcharan Singh son of Shri Sukhdev Singh, resident of village Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, situated at Near General Bus Stand, Hisar road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

  ...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

      SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

                  SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Hardeep Singh,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was owner of one Motor cycle bearing registration No.HR24-R/3683, make Hero Motor Corp Limited model 2012. The above said motor cycle was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No.35370031150100002633 for the period w.e.f. 11.6.2015 to 10.6.2016. The op company has assessed the value of the above said motor cycle as Rs.30,000/-.  That the above said motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 12.7.2015 and a case FIR No.130 dated 13.7.2015, under Sections 457/380 IPC was registered in police station Ding on the statement of complainant. The complainant informed the op company about the above said theft of his motor cycle and submitted all the required documents. The police submitted untraced report in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa which was accepted vide order dated 25.4.2016. The op company is legally bound to accept the genuine claim of the complainant but the op has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 2.9.2016 alleging that the claim of the complainant was delayed and due to this reason the claim is not maintainable, which is wrong and against the law and facts. The complainant approached and requested the op to admit his claim but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. First of all, as per his own admission, the alleged theft of his vehicle took place on 12.7.2015 and he reported the matter to the police on 13.7.2015 i.e. after a gap of one day and the complainant gave information of this theft of his vehicle to the opposite party on 4.8.2015 i.e. after a gap of 23 days, whereas, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was under legal obligation to give information of the alleged theft of his vehicle to op immediately. In this manner, the complainant denied the op to conduct its own investigation in the manner and the complainant intentionally and malafidely allowed the valuable time to elapse. The repudiation letter is perfectly legal and valid and has been issued in accordance to the law. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, opposite party produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A and copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The perusal of the record reveal that complainant filed this complaint being the owner of the motor cycle No.HR-24R/3683 which was insured with the opposite party for the period 11.6.2015 to 10.6.2016 vide insurance policy No.35370031150100002633 issued by opposite party for the insured value of Rs.30,000/-. It is averred in the complaint that vehicle of complainant was stolen on 12.7.2015 and a case FIR No.130 dated 13.7.2015 under Sections 457/380 IPC was registered at P.S. Ding. The claim was lodged with the op and same was repudiated. In order to prove the complaint, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant also filed policy schedule cum certificate of insurance as Ex.C1, copy of final report form duly attested by DSP (HQ) Sirsa Ex.C2, copy of order dated 25.4.2016 by which the untrace report was duly accepted by learned JMIC, Sirsa Ex.C3, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C4, copy of registration certificate Ex.C5, copy of adhar card Ex.C6, copy of driving licence Ex.C7 and copy of FIR Ex.C8. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished affidavit of Sh. I.C. Sirohi, Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A and copy of repudiation letter Ex.R1, copy of the application of complainant Ex.R2, copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance as Ex.R3.

6.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op has strongly contended that as per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant was required to inform the op qua the occurrence of theft immediately but, however, as per allegations in the complaint, the theft took place on 11.7.2015 whereas intimation was given to the op on 4.8.2015 vide application Ex.R2 which is fatal to the claim of the complainant and the op has rightly repudiated the claim. Learned counsel for op has also relied upon judgment reported as IV (2014) CPJ 637 (NC) titled as United India Insurance Company Vs. Jogendra Singh. Learned counsel for op has also produced the copy of terms and conditions duly printed by the op.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has also strongly contended that the theft took place on the intervening night of 11/12.7.2015 rather in the morning of 12.7.2015 and the police was duly informed on the same day but, however, the FIR was got registered by police on 13.7.2015 without any loss of time and before informing the police the complainant himself made his all best efforts to follow and trace out his vehicle. It has also been contended that though the due intimation was also given to the op well in time but, however, on their demand written intimation was given on 4.8.2016.  The police had also made their best efforts to trace out the vehicle but ultimately they submitted their untraceable report which was accepted by learned Illaqa Magistrate. There is no lapse on the part of complainant in pursuing his case and making the follow and further providing opportunity to the police and the insurance company to get the vehicle traced out.

8.                We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. The perusal of the record reveal that the theft of the vehicle took place on 12.7.2015 which is evident from the copy of FIR Ex.C8 which was recorded on the statement of complainant Gurcharan Singh. He has specifically stated in his statement to the police that on 11.7.2015 night he parked his vehicle at his house and on 12.7.2015 in the morning when he got up he saw the vehicle standing there but later on he found the same missing. So, it is very much clear from this FIR that occurrence of theft took place on 12.7.2015, due intimation was given to the police well in time and FIR was registered on 13.7.2015 without any loss of time. So, it cannot be presumed that due intimation was not given to the police well in time. Secondly, though learned counsel for op has strongly contended that the information was not given to the op well in time and same was given on 4.8.2015 but as per version of learned counsel for complainant due information was given orally to the op and on their demand a written intimation was given to the company on 4.8.2016. The letter Ex.R2 clearly reveals that the theft took place on 12.7.2015 and the copy of FIR was attached with the application and further more, the op had not placed on file any copy of the terms and conditions of the policy which require the insured to inform the insurer immediately about the occurrence. The op has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that at the time of issuance of insurance certificate, the terms and conditions of the policy were duly supplied to the complainant insured. Further more, the perusal of the affidavit of Sh. I.C. Sirohi, Divisional Manager which is Ex.RW1/A on the file also reveals that he has not uttered a single word in his deposition that the copy of the terms and conditions on the basis of which the op has repudiated the claim of the complainant was ever supplied to the complainant or any intimation to this effect was given to the complainant prior to the occurrence though it was the legal obligation of the op to supply the copy of the terms and conditions of the policy while issuing the cover note cum insurance certificate to the insured. Now at a later stage of the occurrence, the op cannot take this plea of the violation of terms and conditions of the policy when the copy of the terms and conditions was not supplied to the complainant. The op though during the course of arguments has produced a copy of terms and conditions of the policy but it does not find mention any reference that this is same copy of the terms and conditions which was to be applied and issued to the complainant or whether same relates to the case of the complainant or not. So, it appears from the record as well as repudiation letter that opposite party has deliberately and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant for which they were liable to pay. Though, the op has relied upon judgment reported as  IV (2014) CPJ 637 (NC) titled as United India Insurance Company Vs. Jogendra Singh, but the op cannot take the help of that judgment as op did not supply any copy of the terms and conditions at the time of issuance of the policy to the complainant nor op has led any evidence to this effect. Moreover, the police had made their best efforts being investigating agency to trace out the vehicle but, however they could not succeed and submitted their untraced report which was accepted by learned Illaqa Magistrate.

9.                In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to settle and pay the claim to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the claim amount to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till actual payment. We also direct the opposite party to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                               President,

Dated:26.9.2017.                  Member                  Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.