Haryana

Rohtak

742/2010

Ajay - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Sandeep Hooda

31 Dec 2014

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 742.

                                                          Instituted on     : 15.11.2010.

                                                          Decided on       : 08.01.2015.

 

Ajay Kumar s/o Sh. Parkash Chander r/o V.P.O. Titoli, Teh. and District Rothak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

 

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Jawahar Market, Model Town, Rohtak.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

 

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh.Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

                                      ORDER

 

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

 

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-12H-4924 which was duly insured with the opposite party vide cover note no.ABR/AL/08754 for the period from 1.5.2007 to 30.04.2008. It is averred that on 14.05.2007, the said vehicle was stolen from outside his house and FIR No.168 dated 27.05.2007 was got lodged in this regard and untraced report was filed on 15.09.2007. It is averred that the complainant intimated the opposite party regarding the said theft and furnished all the required documents alongwith claim form and untraced report but despite submitting all the documents opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant. It is averred that complainant served a legal notice on 4.9.2010 but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.34029/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that on receiving the information through intimation form dated 02.06.07 for claim regarding the theft of vehicle, the opposite party on the same day took immediate necessary action and appointed Sh.Devender Sharma Surveyor who submitted his investigation report dated 30.05.2008 and it was found that the vehicle was stolen on 14.05.2007 and information to the police was given on 27.05.2007 and the information to the insured was given on 02.06.07 so there is a delay in informing to the police as well as to the insured which lost the chance of vehicle recovery. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy-“Claim for theft of vehicle is not payable if the theft has not been reported to company within 48 hours of the occurrence. Thus there was delay in informing the police as well as to the insurer. As such as per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant is not entitled to any claim. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A & documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14 and has closed its evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed.  As per cover note Ex.R1 the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.34029/-. As per copy of FIR Ex.R3 the vehicle was stolen on 14.05.2007 and the FIR was lodged on 27.05.2007. Complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R14 had repudiated the claim on the ground that intimation to police as well as to the opposite party was delayed and NCRB report is not valid for insurance claims.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground of delayed intimation to the police as well as to the opposite party. In this regard we have perused the report of surveyor Ex.R5 attached with the statements Ex.R6 to Ex.R11. As per the statement Ex.R6 and statement Ex.R11 of the complainant his cousin Suresh Kumar parked the said bike on 14.05.2007 outside the house and he did not find the said vehicle. He searched for it and enquired the persons nearby. He informed the police about the theft on the early morning on 15.05.2007 and the police officials kept on saying that they are searching for the stolen vehicle and suggested the insured to keep searching by himself also. Subsequently on repeated visits by the insured & his cousin, the police lodged the FIR on 27.05.2007 only. The same version has been noted by the investigator in his report Ex.R5. Hence from the above statements it stands proved that there was no delay on the part of complainant in informing the police and it was only the police who kept on delaying the lodging of FIR. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in III(2008) CPJ 459 titled Ridhi Gupta Vs. NIC whereby Hon’ble Delhi State Commission , New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Theft-Information to police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not”. Reliance has also been placed upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine” and in 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram Hon’ble State Commission has also held that “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane.” and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”.

 8.                        In view of the aforesaid law which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party is directed to pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.34029/-(Rupees thirty four thousand and twenty nine only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.15.11.2010 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc. to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

9.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

08.01.2015.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                         

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.