Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1312/2012

Rajbir Kamboj s/o Sh.Banarsi Dass, - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Saini

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1312  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 19.12.2012.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 22.03.2016.

Rajbir Kamboj aged about 43 years son of Shri Banarsi Dass, resident of Village Mujafat, P.O. Kapal Mochan, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distrrict Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                    Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                                                … Respondent. 

 

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                                                                                 

Present: Sh. Satpal Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Rajbir Kamboj has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking directions to the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) to pay an amount of Rs. 19,600/- on account of theft of his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-4634 and further to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5500/- as cost of proceedings.     

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-4634, Model 2006 which was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No. 3510073116202108830 valid from 1.2.2011 to 3.1.2012 for a sum assured of Rs. 19,600/- and a premium of Rs. 642/- was paid in this regard to the OP. It has further alleged that on 20.11.2011, the said motorcycle of complainant was stolen by somebody from the place where he parked his motorcycle at Sukhmani Palace, Buria Road, Jagadhri and complainant reported the matter to the police through Toll free No.100 regarding the theft of his motorcycle(Annexure C-4) and an FIR bearing No. 566 dated 8.12.2011 (Annexure C-8) under section 379 IPC was got registered with police station City Jagadhri. The complainant informed the OP Insurance Company regarding the theft of his motorcycle and claim form was also lodged by the complainant but the OPs sleeping over the matter for a long time and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” on the false ground that the matter was not reported to the insurance company immediately.  Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant is entitled to get the insured amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as prayed above. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no negligence or deficiency in service and on merit it has been mentioned that a claim intimation dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure R-1) was received by the Op Insurance Company from the complainant to the effect that the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-4634 was stolen on 20.11.2011. On receipt of necessary and desired document submitted by the insured it was found that the date of alleged theft is 20.11.2011 whereas a belated FIR was got registered in this case on 08.12.2011 i.e. after 18 days of alleged theft. Besides this the insurance company was intimated on 12.12.2011 i.e. after a gap of 22 days in utter violation of the policy condition No.1. The insured was bound to give immediate intimation as per the terms and condition No.1 of the insurance policy. As such, it is a clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the claim in question is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy being not payable. Therefore, the claim was legally and justifiably repudiated vide letter dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure R-3) and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of registration certificate as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 11.9.2012 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of intimation given police on toll free number as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 21.11.2011 as Annexure C-5,  Photo copy of intimation letter written to Registering Authority, Jagadhri (Yamuna Nagar) as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of letter dated 7.3.2012 as Annexure C-7,  Photo copy of FIR dated 8.12.2011 as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of letter dated 20.9.2011 as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Arora, Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company, as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of intimation letter dated 12.12.2011 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of FIR dated 8.12.2011 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter dated 11.9.2012 as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant was registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-4634 and it was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No. 35100731106202108830 valid from 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2012 for a sum assured of Rs. 19,600/- and a premium of Rs. 642/- was paid in this regard to the OP which was stolen by some unknown person on 20.11.2011 during the currency of insured policy in question. It is also admitted that regarding theft of Motor Cycle an FIR No. 566 dated 8.12.2011 (Annexure C-8/ R-2) was lodged with the police of P.S. City Jagadhri.

 8.                    The only plea of the insurance company is that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure R-3) as the alleged theft took place on 20.11.2011 whereas FIR bearing No. 566 dated 08.12.2011 under section 379 IPC, P.S.City Jagadhri was got registered on 08.12.2011 i.e. after near about 18 days and further the OP insurance company was intimated on 12.12.2011 i.e. after 22 days of the alleged theft which is clearly violation of the terms and conditions No.1 of the insurance policy, according to which the insured was duty bound to give immediate intimation to the insurance company and referred the case law The arguments raised on behalf of OPs are supported by case law titled as Bachan Singh vs. OIC ltd. 2014(3) CLT page 103 (N.C.), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Avtar 2013(4) CLT page 573 (N.C.),  Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagchand Saini, 1(2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C.) have weight as delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. On this point, reliance can also be placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 and the case titled as Om Parkash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2012 (III) CPJ page 59.  Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards the case titled as Gurnam Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. ltd. and others, Revision Petition No. 1068 of 2015 decided on 11.1.2016 wherein it has been held that Loss or damage, due to theft of vehicle is required to be reported to Insurance Company immediately, after theft is detected- Complainant was under contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to Insurance Company immediately after said theft came to his knowledge- Mere intimating police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with terms and conditions of insurance policy.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated on the flimsy ground by the OPs insurance company. The motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-4634 was stolen by somebody on 20.11.2011 and the complainant immediately informed the police of P.S. City Jagadhri on toll free No.100 which is evident from the report (Annexure C-4). So, there is no fault on the part of the complainant, if there is any delay then it was due to the investigation or procedure of the police department. It has been further argued that all the information sought by the OP insurance company was duly clarified by the complainant from time to time. To substantiate the aforesaid version, the complainant’s counsel submitted the case law delivered by our Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as Mohammad Ejaj Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, reported in 2014(4) CLT page 161 wherein it has been held that “Insurance Claim-Repudiation- on the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and 36 days in giving information to the Insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to the insurance companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of FIR and late intimation to the Insurance Company- Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to Insurance Companies which are binding upon them. Appeal accepted. Learned counsel for the complainant further referred the Instruction of IRDA “That the insurer cannot reject claims amount for delay in intimation”

10.                   After going through the above noted facts at length, we are of the considered view that arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs is not tenable on the point that claim was lodged with the insurance company after 22 days from the alleged theft which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. From the information collected from the police Annexure C-4 by the complainant it is clearly evident that complainant intimated the police immediately on toll free number 100 regarding the theft of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-4634, so, the complainant cannot be held liable for any delay in lodging the FIR due to the fault of the police. The same view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Co. ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Others, 2015(3) CLT page 476 wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Theft of vehicle- Delay in FIR- Held- The complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR- He discharged his contractual obligation under the policy for informing the concerned police station.

11.                   Further the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OP on the point of delay intimation is not tenable as the IRDA has clearly mentioned in the instructions that the insurer cannot reject claims amount for delay in intimation” The authorities (supra) tendered by the OP are not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas on the other hand the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Ridhi Gupta Vs. NIC, 2008(3) CPJ page 459 has held that theft information to the police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with the police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not. Even in another case titled as Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram 2014(2) CLT page 386 Hon’ble State Commission has also held that “ in case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane- A delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case”. As per case law titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT page 390 Hon’ble State Commission Haryana, Panchkula has held that “ Delay of 12 days in intimation to the 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”. Even Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 2011-4 PLR National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that “merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform 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” 

12.                   In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been observed that the repudiation of the claim by the OP Insurance Company on the ground of delay intimation to the Insurance Company- Delay in FIR is not genuine and the OP Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of vehicle i.e. Rs. 19,600/-.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs. 19,600/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. It is also made clear that an amount of Rs. 19,600/- on account of theft of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-4634 will be released to the complainant subject to submitting the subrogation letter as well as indemnity bond in favour of OP Insurance Company. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 22.03.2016.

 

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER