Haryana

Ambala

CC/418/2018

Harish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Pushkar Sharma

01 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE T BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case No.:  418 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   17.12.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   01.01.2020.

 

Harish Kumar age about 35 years Resident of V.P.O. Kot Kachna Kalan, P.O. Barara, Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Ambala Division 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

 

     ….…. Opposite Party.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Pushkar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Aditya Verma, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay Rs. 16,000/-, the insured amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 12.04.2018.   
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.15,500/- as litigation costs.

 

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.2017, the complainant purchased a policy No.42040031166200004977 for his two wheelers from the OP by paying Rs.770/- as premium. At the time of purchase the policy, OP assured that  he will get Rs.1,00,000/- on account of  death of the owner and Rs.16,000/- for the theft of the vehicle. Unfortunately, on 12.04.2018, his vehicle got stolen from the parking of the factory, where he is doing job. After searching for some time, complainant got registered an FIR No.0104 dated 20.04.2018 with Police Station Parao and also informed the insurance company/OP about theft of his vehicle. He visited the office of OP many times and requested to pay the claim amount. The OP telephonically informed him that it will pay Rs.16000/- to him within a short span of time, but when he did not receive the said amount then he approached the senior Officials of the OP but of no avail.  Complainant served a legal notice upon the OP, but all in vain. By not paying the claim amount, the OP has committed deficiency in service & Unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; no locus-standi and not coming this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is stated that the intimation about the theft of the vehicle was given on 03.08.2018, whereas alleged incident of theft took place on 12.04.2018. There is delay of 113 days in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle. The complainant himself has admitted this fact vide letter dated 18.09.2018. Even there is delay of 9 days in informing the police about the theft of the vehicle. Due to the conduct of the complainant rights of insurer of timely investigation has been specially prejudiced and now under the grab of consumer complaint OP cannot be made liable to pay the claim amount. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA along with documents as Annexure A-1 to A-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit of Shri S.C. Dass son of Shri Tirlok Chand, posted at M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., Ambala Cantt as Assistant Manager as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP1 to OP12 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

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

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the duly insured motor-cycle of the complainant was stolen on 12.04.2018. He got registered an FIR with the police and also informed the OP about the said incidence. He lodged the claim and also submitted all the requisite documents with the OP. By not paying the genuine claim of the complainant, the OP has committed deficiency in service. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in thep case of Sauashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 13.12.2019.

                   On the contrary, the learned counsel for OP vehemently argued that the vehicle of the complainant was allegedly stolen on 12.04.2018, whereas, he got registered the FIR on 20.04.2018 i.e after a delay of 9 days from the date of occurrence of the incidence. He informed the Insurance Company after a delay of more than three months, from the date of occurrence of the incidence. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted in to the alleged theft of vehicle & make an endeavour to recover the same. There is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, no claim is payable to the complainant.  The present complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the OP has referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 21.08.2018 by three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

6.                Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen on 12.04.2018. From the perusal of FIR, Annexure A-2, it is evident that it was got registered on 20.04.2018. From the letter Annexure OP-2, it is evident that complainant informed the insurance Company about the theft of his vehicle on 18.09.2018. From the said document, it is clear that there is delay of 9 days in informing the police and delay of more than three months in informing the Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle in question. Vide letter dated 10.09.2018, Annexure OP-8, the OP asked the complainant to explain the delay in informing the police and to the insurance company. However, no reason whatsoever has been given by the complainant regarding the delay in intimating the police as well as to the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle in question. Since, in the present case, the OP refused to pay the claim amount to the complainant on the ground that there is delay of 9 days in informing the police and delay of three months and 21 days in informing the Insurance Company, therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sauashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present case. Whereas, the case law referred to by the learned counsel for the OP, M/s Sonell Clocks & Gifts Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., (supra), wherein in Para No.27 of the said judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision in Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and Another, to contend that the genuine claim of the appellant ought not to be rejected on technical ground, keeping in mind that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation warranting liberal construction. That contention cannot be taken forward at the instance of the appellant who has failed to fulfil the threshold stipulation contained in Clause 6 of the general conditions of the policy and for which reason must suffer the consequence. It is not a technical matter but sine qua non for a valid claim to be pursued by the insured, as agreed upon between the parties” is fully applicable in the present case.

7.       In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., (supra), we are of the considered view that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed, consequently, we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs. The parties are left bear their own costs. 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.

Announced on:01.01.2020.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member             President