Haryana

Ambala

CC/123/2023

KRISHAN LAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL SINGH

18 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	123 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	27.03.2023
Date of decision	:	18.11.2024

Krishan Lal age about 68 years son of Shri Nathu Ram resident of House No.642/4, Guru Rvidass Basti, near S.Jain School 7159, Ambala City District Ambala.

                                                                                    ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited 170/2, Netaji Subhash Marg, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Party

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Satpal Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay IDV of Rs.28,500/-, alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 14.10.2021, till its actual realization
2. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
4. To pay Rs.25,000/-, as litigation expenses.
5. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that complainant was registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.HR01AR-1326 which he purchased for his personal use and got it insured with the OP vide policy No.261101/31/2021/1926 valid from 19.02.2021 to midnight of 18.02.2022. On 14.10.2021, complainant parked his motorcycle outside his house and after taking meal when he came out to park his motorcycle inside his house then he found that his motorcycle was missing and he tried to find it out but could not find the same. Complainant immediately reported the matter to police Post No.2 and after lodging a complaint the police told him that  if they found the motorcycle then he would be informed accordingly and thereafter, he visited the police post No.2 regularly and on 21.10.2021, the police official told him that his motorcycle could not be trace and an FIR No.424 dated 21.10.2021 under Section 379 IPC has been registered against unknown person regarding the theft of above said motorcycle. All the original documents like RC, original policy, pollution certificate kept in motorcycle were also stolen with the bike. Complainant inform the OP regarding the theft of his motor cycle and it directed the complainant to come after taking copy of FIR from the police regarding the theft of the motorcycle and he furnished copy of FIR and other documents for insurance claim of his motorcycle and after taking the copy of FIR and other documents the OP told him that it will settle/pay the insurance claim of the said motorcycle to him soon. Complainant visited the OP many times for settlement of insurance claim, but it always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Instead of paying the insurance claim to the complainant, OP has issued a letter dated 08.12.2022. Thereafter, the OP has issued another letter dated 04.01.2023, vide which it repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of inordinate delay in informing the insurance company and there is 7 days delay in lodging the FIR with the police. By repudiating the genuine claim, the OP is deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant was registered owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-01AR-1326. Insurance policy is issued with the terms and conditions to safeguard the said vehicle that comes into action after an accident/incident occurs. As per the terms and conditions of the two wheeler package policy the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle. The FIR was lodged with the delay of 7 days and intimation to the insurance company was given after a delay of 11-1/2 months after the occurrence of alleged incident, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the OP i.e insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the  OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with  heavy costs.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Savita Bakshi, Manager TP HUB/Authorized Signatory of the OP Company –The Oriental Insurance Company, LIC Building, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the theft of the vehicle in question took place during subsistence of the policy in question as such the OP was legally bound to pay the IDV thereof, but the OP repudiated his genuine claim on the flimsy grounds, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that because there was delay of 7 days in lodging FIR with the police qua the stolen vehicle and also delay of about 11 ½ months, on the part of the complainant, in informing the said theft to the OP, therefore, his claim was  rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has placed reliance on the judgment dated 17.08.2010, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company limited Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha and also on the judgment dated 10.10.2013, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Dharambir Vs. OIC.
8.           Since in the present case, neither issuance of the policy in question in favour of the complainant, in respect of the vehicle in question; nor payment of premium by the complainant; nor occurrence of theft thereof; delay of 7 days in lodging FIR and also delay of about 11 ½ months, on the part of the complainant, in informing the said theft to the OP, is in dispute, as such, the only question which needs to be decided by this Commission is as to whether, the OP was justified in repudiating the claim filed by the complainant or not?
9.           In the present case, there is delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR with the police and inordinate delay of eleven and half months in informing the insurance company regarding the theft in vehicle in question. Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Rohtas Singh, Revision Petition No. 899 Of 2007, decided on 09 May 2011  has clearly held that delay in lodging FIR qua incidence of theft to the police and also to the insurance company amounts to  violation of the terms of the policy and as such the insured  is not entitled to claim anything out of the insurance policy. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“…….In the present case, Respondent lodged Police Report on     22.3.2005 after 14 months of the incident and informed Petitioner about the incident on 25^th June, 2005 after 17 months of occurrence of the incident.   As per terms of the policy, Respondent was required to inform the Petitioner about the incident immediately  so as to give an opportunity to  Petitioner to investigate about the incident.  Because of the delay in lodging the claim, Petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to investigate the incident and the nature of injuries suffered by Respondent.   Respondent was guilty of violation of the terms of the policy…”.

 

10.           The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (Supra) has also held that the delay in lodging the claim is fatal  and the Insurance Company  could not be saddled with  the liability  to pay compensation to the insured as the insured had not complied with the terms of the policy.  Relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court reads as under:-

          

“Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager.  In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation.  Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident.  In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.  Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis.  In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.”

 

11.           The principle of law laid down in the cases referred to above are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also.
12.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 18.11.2024

 

	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
	Member	President