BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 23 of 2014
Date of Institution : 11.2.2014
Date of Decision : 4.12.2015
Ram Niwas (aged about 27 years) son of Sh.Om Parkash, r/o village Mithanpura Dhani, tehsil Ellenabad distt.Sirsa (Hry).
….Complainant.
Versus.
National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Sirsa-125055 (Hry).
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ………PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Anil Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he is registered owner of Hero
Honda CD Deluxe 100 c.c. Motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-44F-0146, bearing Chassis No.MBLHA-11ENC9E28852 and Engine No. HA11ECC9E06440 which was duly insured with National Insurance Company i.e. opposite party for the period from 14.6.2012 to13.6.2013 vide Policy No.35100731126200737912. The complainant paid Rs.1227/- as premium for comprehensive insurance of said vehicle with IDV of Rs.38642/-. On 26.2.2013 when his friend Mahinder s/o of Om Parkash, who borrowed the vehicle of the complainant, was going from Shoedanpura to Bani Dhani via Nohar road, two person requested him to give a lift on the bike and under the compelling circumstances and presuming the said two persons as needy and genuine, the friend of complainant Mahinder gave them lift. But, after passing some distance, the said persons got stopped the motor-cycle and snatched the motor-cycle by pulling up a pistol and also threatened to kill him, if the mtoor-cycle is not handed over. Said Mahinder informed that whole incident of snatching the vehicle on 26.2.2013. On 27th and 28th Feb, 2013, they tried their best to search out the culprits and motor-cycle. Ultimately, the complainant lodged FIR no.26 on 28.2.2013 under Section 382 IPC in concerned police Station Talwara, distt.Hanumangarh (Raj.). The police assured the complainant that as and when the vehicle will be traced out, he would be informed and the complainant waited till 31.5.2013. In June, 2013, the complainant informed the opposite party regarding snatching/theft of motor-cycle and submitted his Claim Form with all required documents. On 27.8.2013 and 30.9.2013, the opposite party unnecessary issued the unwanted letter to the complainant and finally vide letter dated 22.11.2013, repudiated the claim of complainant, which are quite baseless. Hence, the present complaint for payment of Rs.38642/- alongwith interest and compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.
2. Simple case of opposite parties, in their reply, is that on receipt of information from the complainant on 10.6.2013 regarding the theft of motor-cycle, Sh.Lalit Kumar Mehra, Advocate was deputed for investigation, who submitted his report on 26.6.2013 after recording statements of Sh.Ram Niwas, the owner of vehicle, Shri Mahinder s/o Om Parkash & Sh.Parmod Kumar, neighbourer of complainant. It was disclosed by the investigator that the vehicle was snatched from Sh.Mahinder on 26.2.2013 for which the complainant got lodged the FIR no.26 on 28.2.2013 i.e. after two days of occurrence and intimated the OP on 10.6.2013 i.e. after three months and fifteen days of occurrence, which is against the terms and conditions of the policy. Said Mahinder, who was driving the vehicle at the time of incident had given lift to two unknown persons during the late hours of the evening and facilitated them for the crime. He was also driving the vehicle against the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and rules thereof. Moreover, said Mahinder from whom the motor-cycle was snatched, did not accompany the insured at the time of registration of FIR and thus, the claim was repudiated. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-registration certificate; Ex.C3-certificate-cum-policy schedule; Ex.C4-FIR; Ex.C5-repudiation letter dt. 30.9.2013 and Ex.C6-its reminder dt. 22.11.2013, whereas opposite party has placed on record Ex.R1-affidavit of Ashok Kamboj, Assistant Manager and Ex.R2-claim application.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It is admitted fact that the motor-cycle of the complainant was insured with the Ops from 14.6.2012 to13.6.2013 vide Policy No.35100731126200737912. The complainant paid Rs.1227/- as premium for comprehensive insurance of said vehicle with IDV of Rs.38642/-. It is also admitted fact that on 26.2.2013 two persons snatched the motor-cycle from Mahinder and to this effect FIR no. 26 Ex.C4 was lodged on 28.2.2013u/s 382 IPC at police station Talwara distt.Hanumangarh (Raj.).
6. The respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Ex.C5 on the two grounds viz. complainant has lodged the FIR on 28.2.2013, whereas the said occurrence was held on 26.2.2013, after the about two days of occurrence, Ops also alleged that at the time of occurrence three passengers were riding on the motor-cycle. It has been held by the Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in appeal no. 17 of 2014 dated 30.1.2015 in 2015 (1) CLT 585 titled as IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Versus Dulichand Sahu , that insurance company cannot take the shelter on the ground that FIR was recorded belatedly as well as intimation to the insurance company was sent after a lapse of 3-1/2 months. In this authority Commission has directed the insurance company IFFCO Tokio to pay the 75 % amount of sum insured even complainant has lodged the intimation belatedly. The facts of the present case are covered with this authority. In this judgment their lordship discuss the law on this point in broadly by discussing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as National Commission. Hon’ble Chhatisgarh State Commission, Raipur has discussed in the judgment IFFCO Tokio (supra) on the basis of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in case titled National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 that in case of breach of condition of policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis”. Furthermore, it is also observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that in case of theft/snatch of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis.
7. The Ops has raised the objection in the repudiation letter that Mahender intentionally facilitated to two mischievous persons. So far as, contention of Ops regarding triple riding is concerned, same is divide of merit because driver Mahender had given a lift to passengers on humanitarian ground and same cannot be said from any corner that he violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover, had Mahender any apprehension that passenger may robe him, he would not have given them lift. Mahender was on his way from Sheodanpura to Bani Dhani and at about 8.30 p.m. & the said passenger sought lift. In these circumstances it can be observed that Mahender gave them lift believing themselves to be in need and conduct of Mahender driver cannot be said that he had intention to violate the terms and conditions of the policy.
8. As regard, the contention of the Ops that neither Mahinder lodged the FIR no.26 dt.28.2.2013 Ex.C4 nor accompanied Ram Niwas owner of the vehicle to the police station, same is devoid of merit, because anybody can set the criminal law in motion. Furthermore, to rebut the allegations of the FIR Ex.C4, no documents or evidence has been given by the Ops. So far as contention of the Ops regarding non producing the affidavit of Mahinder is concerned, same is also devoid of merit because the incident of snatching of the motor-cycle is admitted by the Ops as Surveyor has submitted a report to the Ops in this regard. Ram Niwas is owner of the motor-cycle and he is entitled for compensation, so he himself has given his affidavit to prove the facts.
9. It may assume by common sense that a person will try to search the vehicle at his own level before lodging the FIR. So, the period of two days consumed in the search of the lost vehicle prior to lodging FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case and it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged belated.
10. In the light of above discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant by giving IDV of the vehicle on non-standard basis. As per the complaint, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.38642/- which round figure comes to Rs.38,000/- and thus, on non-standard basis 75% of the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.28500/-, which will be paid by the Ops to the complainant, within a period of two months, otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.2.2014 till actual payment. However, insurance company will be entitled to get transferred the motor cycle in his name and complainant will be bound to complete the documents in this respect before he receive the claim. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:4.12.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Ram Niwas Vs. NIC
Present: Sh.Anil Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 4.12.2015.
Presiding Member,
Dt.1.12.2015. D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
Member.
Present: Sh.Anil Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:4.12.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
