Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/178/2019

Jagmohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sultan Singh

16 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                     Complaint Case No.178 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 13.05.2019.

                                                     Date of decision: 18.10.2019.

 

Jagmohan s/o Shri Shiv Charan, r/o village Chand Nagar, Farukh Nagar, Gurugram, now resident of Room No.A-51, Tagore Bhawan, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.  

                                                                    …..…Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

….….Opposite Party.

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Shri Sultan Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Shri A.L. Madan, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jagmohan against National Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing registration No.HR-76C-5805, having Chassis No.MBLHA10BWFHH14744, Engine No.HA10EWFHH06892, Model 2015 and the same was insured with the OP for a sum of Rs.37,280/- vide Policy No.39010231166202143543 from 31.8.2016 to 30.8.2017. On 25.12.2016, at about 09:00 AM, he parked the said motorcycle in the parking of Tagore Bhawan, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra with lock & left to his village Chand Nagar (Farukh Nagar). On 09.1.2017, at about 04:00 AM, he visited to parking place, where he parked the motorcycle and shocked to see that his motorcycle was not there. He lodged a complaint with the police and reported the matter regarding theft of motorcycle. The police officials further reported about the theft to all the concerned police posts, police stations, PCR, Riders etc., but could not find or trace the same. Thereafter, the police lodged an FIR No.17 dated 09.1.2017 u/s 379 of IPC, PS KUK in this regard. He also gave intimation to the OP immediately in this regard and applied to pass his claim with the OP and officials of OP assured that they would release the claim to him at the earliest. But the OP has rejected his claim on 29.3.2017 on the ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR. It is pertinent to mention here that the matter was immediately reported to the police and FIR was also lodged by the police. By not paying his genuine claim, the OP is deficient in providing the services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and time barred. It is stated that the present complaint is time barred as the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 29.3.2017 and present complaint has been filed on 22.4.2019, as such, the present complaint having been filed after prescribed period of limitation of two years. It is further stated that the complainant has suppressed and concealed the true & material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The true facts are that the alleged theft took place on 25.12.2016 and FIR was lodged on 09.1.2017 belatedly by 15 days and also OP was intimated on 13.1.2017 after a delay of 19 days of alleged theft. This constitutes a serious breach of the condition No.1 and 9 of the insurance policy. Thus, the OP vide its letter dated 29.3.2017 rightly refused to pay the insured amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP and the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

4.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             At the outset, the learned counsel for the OP has vehemently argued that the present complaint is time barred as the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 29.03.2017 and present complaint has been filed on 13.05.2019 i.e. after prescribed period of limitation of two years from the date of cause of action on 29.3.2017. Thus, the present complaint may be dismissed on the point of limitation. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP had repudiated his claim on dated 29.3.2017, but this repudiation letter was sent to the complainant on 25.05.2017 through registered post, so cause of action arises to the complainant after 25.05.2017 and the present complaint has been filed on 13.05.2019 i.e. within two years of limitation period. In this regard the complainant produced Notary Certified true copy of repudiation letter dated 29.03.2017 as Ex.C-4, receipt dated 25.05.2017 and envelope of Registered cover as Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6 respectively on the case file. He further contended that this contention of the OP, is not tenable and may be rejected.

7.             We find force in this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation, because, the complainant came to know for the first time after regarding repudiation of his claim on receiving a letter dated 29.3.2017 from the OP through registered post on 25.05.2017. Meaning thereby, the cause of action has arisen to the complainant on 25.05.2017 and he filed the present complaint on 13.5.2019 i.e. well within the period of limitation of two years. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the complaint is barred by limitation, is not tenable. Hence, rejected.

8.             On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that duly insured motorcycle of the complainant was insured with the OP for a sum of Rs.37,280/- from 31.8.2016 to 30.8.2017. He further argued that on 25.12.2016, at about 09:00 AM, the complainant parked the said motorcycle in the parking of Tagore Bhawan, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra with lock & left to his village Chand Nagar (Farukh Nagar). On 09.1.2017, at about 04:00 AM, when he visited to parking place and shocked to see that his motorcycle was not there. He lodged a complaint with the police vide FIR No.17 dated 09.1.2017 u/s 379 of IPC, PS KUK in this regard. He also gave intimation to the OP immediately in this regard by submitting all the requisite documents, but the OP has rejected his claim on 29.3.2017 on the ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR.

9.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the alleged theft took place on 25.12.2016 and FIR was lodged on 09.1.2017 i.e. after 15 days and OP was intimated on 13.1.2017 i.e. after a delay of 19 days of alleged theft. This way, the OP violated the terms & conditions of the policy and thus, the OP vide its letter dated 29.3.2017 rightly refused to pay the insured amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP.

10.            There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OP for a sum assured of Rs.37,280/- for the period from 31.8.2016 to 30.8.2017 vide policy Ex.C-3. While going through the FIR dated 09.01.2017 (Ex.C-6/Ex.R-4), it is revealed that the said motorcycle was stolen between 25.12.2016 to 09.1.2017 from the parking of Tagore Bhawan, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP, but the OP vide letter dated 29.3.2017 (Ex.C-4/Ex.-R-1) treated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” merely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR and delay in giving the intimation to the OP from the date of theft. In this regard, the complainant had contended that he lived in room No.A-51 of Tagore Bhawan, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and parked his motorcycle on 25.12.2016 in the parking and on 09.1.2017, when he came to pickup the motorcycle, the same was not found there. In this regard, he intimated the police and lodged the FIR on the same day i.e. on 09.1.2017. However, from the perusal of FIR Ex.C-7, we found force in the above contention the complainant that he found missing his motorcycle on 09.1.2017 and he intimated the police and lodged the FIR on the same day i.e. on 09.1.2017. So, the contention of the OP that the FIR was lodged after 15 days of the theft, has no force. Moreover, the above reasons for refusing to pay the claim to the complainant taken by the OP in letter dated 29.3.2017  i.e. delay in lodging the FIR and delay in intimation to the OP, is concerned; in this regard, we can also 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”. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and instructions of IRDA, it would not be fair and reasonable on the part of the OP to refuse to pay the genuine claim of the complainant merely on the ground of delay in intimation as well as delay in lodging the FIR. Since the motorcycle in question was insured for Rs.37,280/-, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount alongwith the compensation and litigation expenses, subject to furnishing of subrogation letter and transfer the ownership of vehicle in question in the name of OP by the complainant.

11.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs.37,280/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and         physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, 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 OP. 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.: 18.10.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.