Haryana

StateCommission

A/833/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PARKASH DEEP CHAND CHANDER BHAN - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      833 of 2015

Date of Institution:      01.10.2015

Date of Decision :       26.04.2016

 

National Insurance Company Limited, 5C, 1 & 2, B.P. Railway Road, N.I.T. Faridabad through its Branch Manager.

Now represented through its duly authorised signatory of Regional Office-II, National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Om Parkash, Deep Chand, Chander Bhan sons of Shri Hukam Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office, Allawal Pur, Tehsil and District Palwal.

Respondents/Complainants

2.      The Manager, Gurgaon Grameen Bank Village Katesra, Tehsil and District, Palwal.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Karan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Om Parkash, Deep Chand and Chander Bhan-complainants/respondents, purchased a new tractor Mahindra D1 265, bearing Engine No.38634, on November 14^th, 2009. It was got insured with  National Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.1 (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) from November 16^th, 2009 to November 15^th, 2010 vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-8. The Insured Declared Value of the tractor was Rs.4,16,700/-. The complainants applied for the Certificate of Registration with the Registering Authority, Palwal.

2.      During the intervening night of November 24^th/25^th, 2009, the tractor was stolen. The complainants approached the Police of Police Station, Chand Hut, District Faridabad and the Insurance Company. The Police did not register F.I.R. and asked the complainants to bring the Certificate of Registration of the tractor. After receipt of the Certificate of Registration (Annexure C-1), the Police registered F.I.R. No.16 dated January 25^th, 2010 (Annexure C-2). The complainants filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that there was delay of 73 days in lodging of the F.I.R. and 89 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereof, the complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.      The District Forum vide order dated May 29^th, 2015 allowed the complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.4,16,700/-, that is, IDV of the tractor alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation; Rs.5,000/- compensation and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses.

4.      By filing the present appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the order of the District Forum.

5.      Shri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the tractor was stolen during the intervening night of November 24^th/25^th, 2009; F.I.R. (Annexure C-2) was registered on January 25^th, 2010 and the Insurance Company was informed on February 3^rd, 2010.  Thus, there was delay of 73 days in lodging of the F.I.R. and 89 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainants.

6.      It is not in dispute that the tractor was purchased on November 14^th, 2009 and it was stolen during the intervening night of November 24^th/25^th, 2009, that is, after about ten days. The complainants informed the Police but the Police asked to submit the Certificate of Registration of the tractor. The complainants submitted the papers to the Registering Authority, Palwal to seek Certificate of Registration. The Certificate of Registration was issued by the Registering Authority on December 4^th, 2009 (Annexure C-1). After presentation of the Certificate of Registration and other documents before the Police, F.I.R. (Annexure C-2) was registered. Thus, the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has been duly explained by the complainants. It was on account of inaction of the Police.  

7.      The other plea of the Insurance Company that it was informed after 89 days, is also not tenable because to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. Even otherwise, in the Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’), it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”.  The tractor was stolen during the intervening night of November 24^th/25^th, 2009 and F.I.R. (Annexure C-2) was lodged. Once the Police have registered the F.I.R., the question of breach of trust by the complainants does not arise.

8.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176, deprecated the practice often adopted by the Insurance Companies of denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants.

9.      In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainants. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

10.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 26.04.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL