Punjab

StateCommission

FA/920/2013

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.L. Bajaj

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                            2^nd Additional Bench

 

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 920 of 2013

                                                           

                                                Date of institution:   26.08.2013

                                                Date of decision    :   27.02.2015

 

Jaspal Singh s/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, resident of VPO Duggan, District Sangrur.                          

                                                                   …..Appellant/complainant

                                      Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Senior Manager, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                                                                                                                                             …..Respondent/opposite party

 

First Appeal against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

 

Before:-

 

          Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

          Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member       

          Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

Present:-

 

            For the appellant                   :         Sh. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate                                  

           For the respondent                 :         Sh. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate

 

         

JASBIR SINGH GILL, MEMBER

 

 

          The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘complainant’) has filed this appeal  under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the 'District Forum') in C.C. No. 315 of 24.07.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the District Forum.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased an insurance policy from respondent/opposite party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’) for his car Innova GI PB-10-C-6502.  This vehicle was insured to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 17,276/- as premium to the OP.  On 15.10.2011, Gurbakshish Singh had taken his vehicle Innova to Jalandhar from where his vehicle was stolen.  He immediately gave the intimation to the police but FIR was not registered by police.  Thereafter he contacted SSP, Jalandhar, and the police registered FIR No. 149 on 19.12.2011.  The complainant also informed the agent of the insurance company on the next date of theft but he demanded the copy of FIR and non traceable report.  The OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of late intimation.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum with the prayer that the OP be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% and Rs. 50,000/- on account of damages of harassment caused to the complainant.  

3.       Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed the written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, and the claim of the complaint was repudiated on the ground of late intimation of theft of vehicle i.e. after 122 days of loss of vehicle whereas as per policy condition it was to be informed the OP immediately after the loss within 48 hours.  On merits, it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with OP for the period from 19.04.2011 to 18.04.2012 for sum assured of Rs. 6,50,000/-.  Other allegations made in the complaint were denied. 

4.       Parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence copy of policy Ex. C-1, copy of DDR Ex. C-2, copy of FIR Ex. C-3. Reply to notice Ex. C-4, letters Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-6, affidavits Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8 and affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavits Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2, copy of intimation letter Ex. R-3, letters Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-6, postal receipts Ex. R-7 to Ex. R-9, copy of policy with conditions Ex. R-10, investigation report Ex. R-11, proposal form Ex. R-12, pre-inspection report Ex. R-13 and closed the evidence.        

7.       After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated  01.07.2013 dismissed the complaint.

8.       Aggrieved by this order, the appellant/complainant has come up in appeal on the ground that the vehicle was stolen on 15.10.2011 from Jalandhar and the intimation was given to the police on the same date.  But FIR was not registered by police, ultimately with the intervention of SSP, Jalandhar, the same was registered vide FIR No. 149 on 19.12.2011 which was not intentionally delayed by the complainant.  The District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence on the record and prayed for acceptance of the appeal.

9.       We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

10.     Counsel for the complainant submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the complainant to the point of delay as he immediately informed the policy but they have not recorded the FIR and intimation regarding the theft to the agent of the insurance company was also given who had demanded a copy of FIR and non traceable report. 

11.     On the other hand, it was submitted by the counsel for the OP that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was required to give intimation to the OP immediately after the theft whereas such information was given after 122 days.  There is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which was a valid ground for rejecting the claim.  There is no ground for making any modification in the order of the District Forum.

12.              Under these circumstances, we are required to see as to whether there was breach of any fundamental condition of insurance policy and if so what were the consequence thereof Ex. R-10 in the terms and conditions of the policy.  Relevant condition No. 1 of the policy is reproduced as under:-

1.       Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental 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.  Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured.  Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately when the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution.  Inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy.  In case of a major loss, theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operative with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.

13.     The plain reading of condition No. 1 extract above clearly goes to show that a notice shall be given in writing to the policy as also the company immediately upon theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as company shall require.  However, while interpreting similar condition in the insurance policy, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission in F.A. No. No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009 reported as “New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Tarlochan Jain” that in the case of theft, the insurer shall be informed within a day or two, so that the insurer can verify whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced.  Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the Commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.  They had appointed BEE,VEE investigation agency whose report is proved on the record as Ex. R-11.  After thorough investigation, that investigator came to the conclusion that the theft of the vehicle is genuine and the claim of the insured was liable to be dealt with subject to the condition mentioned in that report.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 titled as “United India Insurance Company Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal” in which it was held that the terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted there from.  The policy provided that in case of theft, the matter would be reported immediately.  In the context of theft of the car, word immediately has to be construed directly to make the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation.

14.              In this case, the complainant has placed on record FIR which was registered on 09.12.2011 Ex. C-3 in which he has admitted that he had informed the police on 09.12.2011 after the delay of 53 days.  The complainant has not produced any other evidence regarding the immediate intimation given to the insurance company/or the police as the insurance company has stated that they had repudiated the claim on account of late intimation of theft i.e. after 122 days of loss to the insurance company as per the policy condition.  It has to be informed immediately after the loss within 48 hours.

15.              We are of the view that the delay in intimation deprived the insurance company of its legimate rights to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and made endeavour to recover the same therefore, the insurance company could not settle the liability to gave compensation to the insured despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.  The order of the District Forum is justified and there is no ground to set it aside.  The appeal of the appellant is meritless and the same is dismissed.  

16.               The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

                                                (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN)

                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                                               

                                                          (JASBIR SINGH GILL)

                                                                   MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

 

(HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

MEMBER

February 27, 2015

Rupinder