BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.100 of 2015
Date of Institution : 25.5.2015
Date of Decision : 26.10.2016.
Sumit Kumar son of Shri Gopi Ram, resident of Gali Talanga Wali, Bhadra Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch at Sangwan Chowk, near HDFC Bank, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager Regional Office- DOCS, Hero Honda Vertical 101-106, BMC House, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.N.Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he is the registered owner of Motor cycle make Hero Honda Splender Pro bearing registration NO.HR-24N/3850. The said motor cycle was got insured with the opposite parties vide policy no.35100731116202510321 for the period from 27.1.2012 to 26.1.2013. The complainant is running the business of Furniture house near Police Station City Sirsa under the name and style as Garg Furniture House. On 23.9.2012, at about 1.30 p.m. when he was to go to home for lunch, he was shocked to know that the motorcycle which was lying parked just in front of his shop was missing. The complainant thereafter tried to make search of the motorcycle, but the same was not found and ultimately he reported the matter to the police station City Sirsa and V.T. message was conveyed on the same day through the control room, Sirsa, but same was not found and ultimately, the police registered an FIR No.702 on 27.9.2012 for offence under Section 379 IPC against unknown person and as such lapse in the registration of the FIR in time is not the fault of complainant. The complainant also moved an application on 3.10.2012 to the Branch Office of ops’ company at Sirsa regarding theft of motor cycle and requested for payment of claim amount. Thereafter, also he took many rounds to the office of ops for getting his genuine claim, but ops put off the matter on one pretext or the other. However, the op no.1 has collected all the relevant documents on the pretext that these documents are required to get sanction the claim from op no.2, but insurance company has failed to redress his grievance and now vide letter dated 12.12.2012, the ops have repudiated the claim of complainant on baseless ground that complainant has got lodged the FIR on 27.9.2012. The complainant is legally entitled for the insured sum/ claim amount of Rs.50,000/- besides compensation for harassment etc. and also entitled to litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written statement wherein it is pleaded that order of repudiation has been passed by answering ops in discharge of their official duty, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy that also after receipt of report of investigator Sh. Madan Goyal, hence claim demanded by filing the present complaint is not maintainable. The policy, its term and conditions says that insured will park the vehicle at safe and secured place and will take all precaution for avoiding any loss and damages to the insured vehicle, further in the event of happening of any event i.e. theft, loss, damages to the vehicle, insured will immediately inform the company and in this case alleged theft has taken place on 23.9.2012, intimation to company has been given on 3.10.2012 and FIR has been lodged on 27.9.2012. This is gross, willful and deliberate violation of terms and conditions of the policy and contract of insurance as delay causes prejudice to the rights of company to get the matter investigated, verified. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, insurance cover note Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, report of police regarding flashing of V.T. message on 23.9.2012 Ex.C4, repudiation letter Ex.C5, copy of order dated 24.3.2015 regarding acceptance of untrace report Ex.C6, copy of registration certificate Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit Ex.R1, repudiation letter Ex.R2, copy of application dated 3.10.2012 Ex.R3, copy of claim form Ex.R4, copy of FIR Ex.R5, report of National Crime Records Bureau Ex.R6 and copy of policy Ex.R7.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. It has been established on record that the motorcycle in question of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties for insured declared value of Rs.33,747/- for the period from 27.1.2012 to 26.1.2013. There is also no dispute that said motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 23.9.2012. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the police on the same day and police of Police station Sirsa flashed the V.T. message on the same day i.e. 23.9.2012 as is evident from report Ex.C4. However, when the motorcycle could not be traced, the police registered the FIR on 27.9.2012, copy of which has been placed on 27.9.2012. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 11.12.2012 Ex.C5 on the ground that motorcycle has been stolen on 23.9.2012 whereas FIR was got registered on 27.9.2012 and intimation about theft has been given to the ops on 3.12.2012. However, as the complainant informed the police about theft of motor cycle on the same day, no lapse for registration of the FIR on 27.9.2012 can be attributed to the complainant and complainant is not at fault in this regard. Further, as the police was informed well in time on the day of theft of motor cycle by the complainant and police immediately flashed the VT message, therefore, it cannot be said that right of the opposite parties to investigate the matter has been prejudiced. Moreover, the condition of policy itself says that “in case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.” So, the complainant has not violated the terms and conditions of the policy rather complied the same. In an authority of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. 2015 (3) CLT 476 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant, it has been held that “ Repudiation of claim due to delay in intimation to Insurance company. The clause in the Insurance policy requires to give immediate intimation of accident but did not require the insured to give immediate intimation of any loss of the vehicle to the insured company. Such claim made no requirement that insured should give immediate intimation to the Insurance company in case of theft of the vehicle. A theft being a deliberate dishonest act, cannot be said to be an accident, hence no immediate intimation required.” The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for ops in case titled as National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Shravan Singh, 2016 (1) CPJ 450 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case there was unexplained delay of one month.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.33,747/- i.e. sum assured to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 25.5.2015 till actual payment. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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. President,
Dated:26.10.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
