Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/38/2019

Ajab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Balwinder bhasin

14 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.38 of 2019.

                                                Date of instt.:24.1.2019.

                                                Date of Decision: 14.11.2019.

 

Ajaib Singh s/o Shri Jagir Singh, r/o village Kharindea, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. National Insurance Company, 87, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Hero Motocorp Vertical- Delhi DOX 803A, 8^th Floor, Tower-C, Konnectus Building, Opposite New Delhi Railway Station, Bhavbhuti Mart, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Chairman.

 

        ………Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Balwinder Bhasin, Advocate for the complainant.      

Shri R.K. Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ajaib Singh against National Insurance Company & other, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a registered owner of a motorcycle Hero Splendor Plus, bearing registration No.HR-78-9065 and insured the same by the branch Kurukshetra City of OP No.1 vide insurance policy No.3901023117620132381 from 01.7.2017 to 30.6.2018. The said motorcycle has been lost on 09.3.2018 from his village and in this regard, he complaint in the PS on 12.3.2018 and the concerned police has lodged the FIR No.147 dated 12.3.2018 u/s 379 of IPC, PS Shahabad Markanda. The complainant approached the OPs personally and requested to pay the insurance compensation amount of Rs.27,000/-, but the matter has been postponed by the OP No.1 branch. He served a legal notice on 07.6.2018 but inadvertently the previous policy number was written instead of present policy number which is 3901023117620132381. The OPs finally refused to make the payment of the insured amount. By not paying his genuine claim, the OPs are deficient in providing the services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding locus-standi; jurisdiction; cause of action. It is stated that the complainant has concealed the true & material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The true facts are that the complainant had never lodged any claim with the OP No.1 regarding the theft of his vehicle. As per policy terms & conditions, the notice is mandatory in case of any event, which may give rise to a claim under the policy of insurance. In the present case, the complainant had neither intimated nor had submitted any document with the OP No.1, as such, question of payment of claim does not arise at all. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1 had received a notice dated 07.6.2018 and in that notice, neither the particulars of lodging of claim nor the correct policy number was mentioned. The said notice was duly replied on 12.6.2018 asking the complainant to provide the correct policy number and address of office, where he had submitted the claim intimation and other documents, but he had not provided the desired information, rather got issued another legal notice dated 17.7.2018 which was also replied on 09.8.2018 and it was informed that the insured Ajaib Singh had never approached the OP No.1 nor had submitted any paper with it and as per policy terms & conditions, immediate notice is required to the insurance company as well as the concerned police station. Thus, the OP No.1 had not committed any deficiency and the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.

                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 before this Forum despite notice sent through registered cover, therefore, the OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.4.2019.

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3.          

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

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has also reiterated all the contents mentioned in its reply.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the motorcycle in question was insured with the OP No.1 for a sum assured of Rs.27,000/- w.e.f. 01.7.2017 to 30.6.2018, as is evident from Policy Schedule Ex.C-2. The learned counsel for the complainant alleged that the said motorcycle was stolen on 09.3.2018 from the village of complainant and in this regard, he got lodged FIR bearing No.147 dated 12.3.2018 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Shahabad Markanda Ex.C-3. He further alleged that the complainant approached the OPs various times as well as issued two legal notices to the OPs on different dates (Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6) to pay the claim amount of Rs.27,000/-, but the OPs had not paid the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has firstly contended that the complainant had not given the intimation to the OP No.1 regarding the theft in question, as such, question of payment of claim does not arise at all. However, from the legal notices Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6 and postal receipts Ex.C7 to Ex.C10, it is clear that the complainant had given late intimation about the theft in question to the OPs, but the OP No.1 cannot deny to pay the claim amount on the ground of late intimtion. 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”. The OP No.1 further contended that the complainant had not submitted any document with the OP No.1 regarding the claim in question. Meaning thereby, the OP No.1 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.

8.             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 10 days and thereafter, the OP No.1 shall pay the claim amount of Rs.27,000/- to the complainant 30 days positively, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 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 record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:14.11.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.