Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 329.
Instituted on : 29.08.2013.
Decided on : 04.08.2015.
Satya Parkash s/o Sh. Balwant Singh R/o H.No.1474/15 Kailash Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Insurance co. Ltd. Delhi Road, Model town, Rothak through its Divisional/Branch Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.
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 Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.HR-12N-6655 which was insured with the opposite party. It is averred that on 20.08.2011 the family members of the complainant went to Guga Meri on the above said vehicle and they parked the vehicle after properly locking the same and the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 20-21.08.2011. It is averred that they tried to trace out the vehicle but the same could not found. The brother of the complainant immediately on the same night informed the police and also intimated the opposite party on the next day orally. It is averred that the police officials demanded an affidavit duly attested from Tehsildar of the locality of the complainant but due to holidays of two days, the affidavit was prepared on 23.08.2011 and the complainant submitted the same to the police on 24.08.2011. It is averred that the complainant intimated the officials of the opposite party namely Sh. Sumer Singh Asstt. Manager on 23.08.2011 and he demanded copy of FIR for registering the claim. After receiving the copy of FIR complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the opposite party and also submitted the final report of the police. It is averred that the complainant moved an application dated 19.03.2012 to the opposite party for disbursement of the claim but the opposite party vide its letter dated 29.03.2012 had repudiated the claim on the ground that “The vehicle in question was stolen on 20.08.2011 and you informed the concerned police on 02.11.2011 and the police lodged the FIR on 02.11.2011. Thus there is a long delay in giving information to the police and intimation to the company was given on 3.11.2011 which is also a long delay. It is averred that there was no intentional delay on the part of complainant and as such 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.504000/- as insurance claim of the vehicle 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 left the vehicle un-attended in the night and inform the police on 2.11.2011 and to the company on 3.11.2011. Thus there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy specially condition no.1 of the policy. Thus the company is not liable to pay any compensation. 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. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 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 copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, the total value of the vehicle is Rs.504000/-. It is also not disputed that the theft of vehicle had taken place on 20/21.08.2011 and the FIR Ex.C8 was lodged on 02.11.2011. After the theft complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.C14 had repudiated the claim on the ground that as per FIR the vehicle in question was stolen on 20.08.2011 and you informed the concerned police on 02.11.2011. Thus there is a long delay in giving information to the police and you also gave intimation to the insurance company on 03.11.2011 Thus there is also delay in informing the insurance company and thus has violated the terms and condition no.1 of the policy”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has only been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy i.e. clause no.1 of giving late intimation to the police as well as to the company. The contention of the complainant is that there was no intentional delay on the part of the complainant to inform the police and to the company. It is further contended that he informed the police on the same day but the police officials demanded an affidavit duly attested from Tehsildar of the locality of the complainant but due to holidays of two days, the affidavit was prepared on 23.08.2101 and the complainant submitted the same to the police on 24.08.2011. To support his contention, the complainant has placed on record copy of affidavit Ex.C6 dated 23.08.2011, application Ex.C7 dated 24.08.2011, copy of FIR Ex.C8, application Ex.C17 to SP, District Hanumangarh for confirmation of theft on 20.08.2011 and copy of letter Ex.C18 under RTI, copy of reply under RTI Ex.C19 and Copy of list of Holidays Ex.C23 is also placed on record. As per the documents placed on record by the complainant it is observed that as per list of holidays Ex.C23, there were holidays on 21.08.2011 and 22.08.2011 on account of Sunday and Janamasthmi respectively. As per copy of report made by the Police Incharge on application Ex.C17, the information of theft was received in the Police Station Gogamerhi on 24.08.2011 and the FIR was lodged on 02.11.2011. As per reply Ex.C19 to the RTI application, the information regarding theft was received in the Police Station Gogamerhi on 24.08.2011. Hence from the alleged documents placed on record, it is proved that there was no delay on the part of complainant in giving intimation to the police and the written intimation was given to the opposite party on 03.11.2011 i.e. next day after receiving the copy of FIR which was required by the opposite party. The main stress for giving immediate information to the company or to the police is only with regard to conducting investigation of the case to know as to whether the theft of the vehicle actually took place or not and to ensure conviction to the offender. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008) CPJ 459 titled Ridhi Gupta Vs. NIC whereby Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Theft-Information to police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not”. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby 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(3)CLT447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj whereby 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, the law cited by ld. Counsel for the opposite party on the point i.e.1(2014)CPJ29(NC) titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Avtar is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. The other plea taken by the opposite party is that the vehicle was left unattended at the time of theft and has placed reliance upon the law cited in II(2015)CPJ 398(NC) titled as Ramadhar Singh Vs. Universal Shampi General Insurance co. Ltd. & Ors, whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Contention, all farmers generally leave their tractor on agricultural field and to have meal” Not accepted-Violation of policy conditions established-Repudiation justified”. But the aforesaid law is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case there is no evidence on file to prove that the vehicle was left unattended. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as per total value of the vehicle and as per policy document Ex.C1/Ex.R2 the value is Rs.504000/-
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the total value of vehicle i.e. Rs.504000/-(Rupees five lac four thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.08.2013 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, 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:
04.08.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
