O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.Ps alleging that complainant had the registered owner of a vehicle Tata Dumper No.HR-38N/6645, Engine No.60A 62446673, Chasis No.396522ATZ200261DL4C AB 4934 which was insured on 19.05.2008 and was valid till 18.5.2009. On 20.04.2009 the driver of the complainant Mr. Praveen Kumar and Helper Sh. Awdesh were going to Manesar, Gurgaon from the above vehicle and when they reached near Sec.1, Manesar, a Tata 407 coming behind, overtook and stopped in front of the complainant vehicle then four unknown people got down from the Tata 407 and attacked driver and helper and forcefully took them from Tata Dumper No.HR-38N/6645 into Tata 407 and covered them with tarpaulin and their eyes were also covered by cloth and thrown in nearby jungle and vehicle No.HR-38N/6645 was stolen from the site. The complainant informed the same incident to the OP on the same day by telephonically and in writing on 30.4.2009. The complainant immediately lodged a FIR on 20.04.2009. In this regard, after verification police had filed untraced/final report dated 25.10.2009. On 26.3.2010, OP had closed the said claim due to noncompliance of the formalities by the complainant and the same was not informed to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant made several complaints in writing, telephonically and personal visits but all in vail. It is alleged that rejection of claim orally without giving anything in writing is illegal and unjustified. On these facts complainant prays that OP be directed to clear the insurance claim amount of Rs.10,92,000/- apart from cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P. appeared and filed written statement. It has not been disputed that the vehicle No.HR-38N/6645, Engine No.60A 62446673, Chasis No.396522ATZ200261DL4C AB 4934 was insured for a period of one year w.e.f. 16.4.2008 to 15.4.2009 declared value of Rs.11,00,000/- subject to various terms and conditions. It is also not disputed that a claim was preferred by complainant which was not passed by O.P. However, its case is that Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear the present complaint as the Policy of insurance was obtained from Sarai Julena office of OP which area falls under some other Forum. It is alleged that there was a break in the policy of insurance as the earlier policy taken on 16.4.2008 was cancelled due to dishonour of premium cheque and fresh policy was obtained fraudulently by the insured from OP’s office without getting the vehicle physically inspected as per clear guidelines of Company. It is alleged that as per conditions of policy of insurance, the complainant was legally and morally duty bound to give immediate notice upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage which he failed to do so and intimated the respondents 10 days after the loss which is violation of the insurance contract as per condition of the Policy. The Clause speaks as under:
“Notice shall be given in writing to the Company within 48 hours upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require…. In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice for the Police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender”.
It is alleged the as such the loss to the insured vehicle was assessed by an surveyor who assessed the loss to the vehicle for an amount of Rs.10,92,000/- on total loss basis but the complainant failed to produce the required documents as well as explanation for late intimation etc. It is alleged that claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated on the basis of late intimation and failed to produce the required documents, therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as mentioned in the complaint whereas Sh. J.S. Kalsi, Divisional Manager has filed his affidavit on behalf of O.P. Parties have also filed their written submissions.
4. In this case the complainant’s claim was repudiated by the OP on the ground that insurer was not immediately informed about the incident, thereby taking away its right to get the matter investigated thereon. It is well settled law that the case of theft of vehicle has to be informed to the police immediately. The record of the case demonstrates that the incident of theft/robbery took place on 20.4.2009 in the early hour of the day and matter was reported to the police on the same day. However, OP was informed about the incident on 30.04.2009 i.e. 10 days after the incident. The need to inform the police and Insurance Company is to provide an opportunity to the authorities and Insurance Company so that steps are taken to trace out the vehicle. It is also now well settled preposition that there should be valid justification for repudiation of claim. Controversy in the present case is as to whether the repudiation by the OP was justified or not. The record indicates that complainant informed the police immediately on day of incident thereby putting the criminal law in motion. This shows his bonafide about the incident. The delayed information given to the Insurance will not, in any manner, come in the way to repudiate the claim. The National Commission case titled Prahlad Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. IV (2012) CPJ 770(NC) – where in the vehicle was taken away forcibly, there was delay of 4 days in lodging FIR and Insurance Co. was informed after about 2 months from the date of incident the repudiation was justified. National Commission, however, held that where the FIR was lodged immediately the case of complainant to this extent would have proved.
5. Relied upon aforesaid authority it becomes crystal clear that in case where the incident is reported immediately, it would prove the bonafides of the complainant. In the present case the complainant reported the matter to the police on 20.4.2009 itself, therefore, we come to the conclusion that repudiation by the OP was totally unjustified. Accordingly, in our opinion, when the complainant reported the Police on the same day and to the OP on 30.4.2009, complainant is thus entitled to the insurance claim amount of Rs.10,92,000/-.
6. The complainant is also awarded Rs.8000/- as compensation for harassment which shall also include cost of litigation. This amount shall be paid to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
Announced this 28th day of December, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA) President Member Member
