Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/379/2020

Harvinder Singh S/o Balwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance - Opp.Party(s)

A.R.Singh

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    379 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         16.10.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision: 03.08.2022

 

Harvinder Singh s/o Shri Balwant Singh, aged about 35 years, r/o village Chammu Kalan, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sahni Nursing Home, Pipli, Kurukshetra Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.2939-40, 1^st Floor, Sector-22C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri A.R. Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Gourav Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of tractor bearing No.HR-41J-7601 make Farmtrac and the same was got insured by him from OPs vide policy No.3501023119010002311 for the period from 30.8.2019 to 29.8.2020. The IDV value of tractor was assessed as Rs.5,50,000/-. In the intervening night of 05.11.2019, he parked the said tractor outside his Dera duly locked. On 06.11.2019 at about 06:00 AM, when he awaked and found that the tractor was not there, which was stolen by some unknown persons. On 07.11.2019, the police lodged an FIR No.191 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Ismailabad. He informed the OPs in this regard through telephone and also submitted copy of FIR, RC, DL, insurance policy with OPs visiting in their office at Kurukshetra. The official of OPs asked him to submit the untrace report and assured once the same was submitted by him, the claim shall be disbursed to him. The concerned Investigating Officer submitted untrace report u/s 173 Cr.PC before the Court of Shri Sohan Lal Malik, Learned JMIC, Pehowa on 13.12.2019 and he submitted its copy in the office of OP No.1. After waiting sufficient time, he visited OPs office many times, but they did not release the claim amount. He served a legal notice dated 07.9.2020 upon OPs through registered post on 08.9.2020, to which they issued false reply dated 25.9.2020. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements stating therein that the complainant had not intimated to any office/branch of OPs regarding the alleged loss. Till date, no claim has been lodged with OPs by the complainant. After a gap of 10 months of alleged loss, a legal notice dated 07.09.2020 without any document, was received in the office of OPs. Hence, delay in intimation to company has prejudiced possibilities of recovery of vehicle. This constitutes serious breach of terms & conditions of the insurance policy. Thus claim of complainant is not maintainable. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the said complaint.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was the registered owner of tractor make Farmtrac and got insured the same from OPs for the period from 30.8.2019 to 29.8.2020. In the intervening night of 05.11.2019, the complainant parked the said tractor outside his Dera duly locked, but on 06.11.2019 at about 06:00 AM, the complainant found that the tractor was not there, which was stolen by some unknown persons. On 07.11.2019, the police lodged an FIR No.191 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Ismailabad. The complainant informed the OPs in this regard through telephone and also submitted copy of FIR, RC, DL, insurance policy with OP No.1 office at Kurukshetra, but despite that, they did not release the claim amount. Whereas, on the other hand, the OPs contended that the complainant had not intimated to any office/branch of OPs regarding the alleged loss. Moreover, they had not received any documents from the complainant regarding the claim, thus claim of complainant is not maintainable.

8.                The learned counsel for OPs has argued that the complainant had not intimated to any office/branch of OPs regarding the alleged loss. Till date, no claim has been lodged with OPs by the complainant. After a gap of 10 months of alleged loss, a legal notice dated 7.9.2020 without any document, was received in the office of OPs. Hence, delay in intimation to company has prejudiced possibilities of recovery of vehicle, which constitutes serious breach of terms & conditions of the insurance policy, thus claim of complainant is not maintainable. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the said complaint.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was the registered owner of tractor bearing Registration No.HR-41J-7601 vide Registration Certificate Ex.C-1 and the same was insured with the OPs for the period from 30.08.2019 to 29.08.2020 for IDV of Rs.5,50,000/-, vide insurance policy Ex.C-2/Ex.R-1. From FIR bearing No.0191 dated 07.11.2019 in PS Ismailabad Ex.C-3, it is clear that the said tractor was stolen by some unknown persons in the intervening night of 05/06.11.2019 and the concerned Investigating Officer submitted untrace report u/s 173 Cr.PC before the Court of Shri Sohan Lal Malik, learned JMIC, Pehowa on 13.12.2019 Ex.C-4.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that he informed the OPs regarding stolen of his tractor through telephone by submitting copy of FIR, RC, DL, insurance policy and untrace report with OP No.1 at Kurukshetra, but despite that, they failed to release his claim. On the other hand, the OPs firstly contended that the complainant had not intimated to any office/branch of OPs regarding the alleged loss and they came to know about that after a gap of 10 months after receiving the legal notice dated 07.09.2020, which constitutes serious breach of terms & conditions of the insurance policy, thus claim of complainant is not maintainable. But it is pertinent to mention here that even it is assumed that the complainant had given late intimation about the theft of his tractor to the OPs, even then, the OPs cannot deny to pay the claim amount, on the ground of late intimation. In this regard, we can rely on the case law titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another, Vol IV 2017 CPJ-10 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that “condition regarding delay shall not be shelter to repudiate insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine”. Even the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has issued guidelines to the insurance companies that “The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimating or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances”.

11.              The OPs further contended that the complainant had not submitted any document with OPs regarding the claim in question. Meaning thereby, the OPs had neither denied nor repudiated the claim of the complainant till so far, so the present complaint is pre-mature one and now if the complainant supplied the requisite documents with the OP No.1 regarding the claim in question, then the matter in dispute can be settled between the parties.

12.              Taking all these facts into consideration, we dispose of the present complaint and direct the complainant to submit the requisite documents with the OP No.1 and also complete all the requisite formalities with the OP No.1, to get the claim amount, within 15 days and thereafter, the OP No.1 shall pay the claim amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, to the complainant, within 30 days positively, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible, under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:03.08.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

          (Neelam)                                                               President,

          Member.                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.