Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/828/2013

Naresh Modi S/o Ishwar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jasdeep Singh Arneja

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 828 of 2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 19.11.2013    

                                                                                          Date of decision: 16.11.2016

 

             Naresh Modi son of Shri Ishwar Dass, resident of House No.693, New Hamida Colony, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                                          Versus

1.        Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, through its Manager/ Incharge, Opposite Madhu Hotel, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar-135001.

2.         Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. Office through its MD-cum-chairman C/o Oriental House PB No.7037, A-25/27, Asar Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Jasdeep Singh Arneja, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Naveen Kaushal, Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs Insurance Company) be directed to release the claim amount of Rs. 14,000/- along with interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is registered owner of motor cycle Hero Honda Splendor, bearing Registration No.HR02-H-4608 and the same was comprehensively insured by OP Insurance Company vide cover Note No. 360549 dated 22.03.2012 which was valid w.e.f. 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013. On 09.06.2012 at about 08:30-09:00pm, the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen from outside the Goyal Market, Yamuna Nagar.  Complainant immediately inform the police  of P.S. City Yamuna Nagar on toll free No. 100. The complainant moved an application to SHO, P.S. City Yamuna Nagar on 09.06.2012 and thereafter, an FIR bearing No.249 dated 11.06.2012 under Section 379 IPC in PS City Yamuna Nagar was registered.  Police was not able to search the motor cycle of the complainant and finally submitted untraced report in the Court of Sh. Rajesh Sharma, CJM Yamuna Nagar on 04.07.2013. On 10.06.2012, complainant informed the OP No.1 regarding stolen the motor cycle and copy of FIR, other relevant documents and fill some form as per the direction of OP No.1. On 28.06.2013 complainant received letter dated 28.06.2012 from the OP No.1 regarding demand of Untraced report. Police filed the untraced report after one year of theft i.e. on 04.07.2013. The OPs Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23.08.2013 on the ground that there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as the theft took place on 09.06.2012 and the OPs Insurance Company was informed on 23.07.2012. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus standi; no cause of action; the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed by the complainant with mala fide intentions just to harass, complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and on merit it has been admitted that motor cycle bearing registration No. HR02H-4608 registered in the  name of Naresh Modi was insured by the OP Insurance Company for a total IDV of Rs.14,000/- vide policy No.261700/31/2012/11350 from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013. It has also been admitted that OPs Insurance Company has sent a pre-repudiation letter dated 23.08.2013 on the ground stated as under:

"Vehicle theft on 09.06.2012 whereas you have informed us on dated 23.07.2012 which is clear cut violation of condition of our policy, because you have to inform to us within 48 hours.

It has also been submitted that OPs Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 30.09.2013 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of the case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit of Shri Naresh Modi as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C1, photocopy of Insurance Cover Note as Annexure C2, photocopy of Letter written to SHO as Annexure C3, photocopy of FIR as Annexure C4, photocopy of untrace report as Annexure C5, photocopy of letter dated 28.06.2013 as Annexure C6, photocopy of letter dated 23.082013 as Annexure C7, photocopy of claim repudiation letter dated 30.09.2013 written to Naresh Modi as Annexure C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company has tendered into evidence, affidavit of Shri Abhash Toppo, Assistant Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited as Annexure RW/A and photocopy of Insurance Policy as Annexure R1, photocopy of intimation letter dated 23.07.2012 as Annexure R2, photocopy of letter dated 28.06.2013 for supplying of documents as Annexure R3, photocopy of letter dated 23.08.2013 for supplying of documents as Annexure R4, photocopy of claim repudiation letter dated  30.09.2013 as Annexure R5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs Insurance Company.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant was registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02H-4608 (Annexure C-1) and it was insured with the OPs Insurance Company vide policy bearing No. 261700/31/2011/2640 (Annexure R-1) valid from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013 for a sum assured of Rs. 14,000/- and a premium of Rs. 545/- was paid in this regard to the OPs insurance company which was stolen by some unknown person on 09.06.2012 during the currency of insurance policy in question. It is also admitted that regarding theft of Motor Cycle an FIR No. 249 dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure C-4) was lodged with the police of P.S. City Yamuna Nagar.

8.                     The only plea of the insurance company is that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure R-5) as the alleged theft took place on 09.06.2012 whereas FIR bearing No. 249 dated 11.06.2012 under section 379 IPC, P.S.City Yamuna Nagar was got registered i.e. after about 2 days and further the OP insurance company was intimated on 12.12.2011 i.e. after 42 days of the alleged theft which is clearly violation of the terms and conditions No.1 of the insurance policy, according to which the insured was duty bound to give immediate intimation to the insurance company and referred the case law The arguments raised on behalf of OPs are supported by case law titled as Bachan Singh vs. OIC ltd. 2014(3) CLT page 103 (N.C.), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Avtar 2013(4) CLT page 573 (N.C.),  Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagchand Saini, 1(2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C.) have weight as delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. On this point, reliance can also be placed on judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 and the case titled as Om Parkash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2012 (III) CPJ page 59.  Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards the case titled as Gurnam Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. ltd. and others, Revision Petition No. 1068 of 2015 decided on 11.1.2016 wherein it has been held that Loss or damage, due to theft of vehicle is required to be reported to Insurance Company immediately, after theft is detected- Complainant was under contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to Insurance Company immediately after said theft came to his knowledge- Mere intimating police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with terms and conditions of insurance policy.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated on the flimsy ground by the OPs insurance company. The motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02H-4608 was stolen by somebody on 9.06.2012 and the complainant immediately informed the police of P.S. City Jagadhri on the same day, which is evident from the intimation letter (Annexure C-3). So, there is no fault on the part of the complainant, if there is any delay then it was due to the investigation or procedure of the police department. It has been further argued that all the information sought by the OP insurance company was duly clarified by the complainant from time to time. To substantiate the aforesaid version, the complainant's counsel submitted the case law delivered by our Hon'ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as Mohammad Ejaj Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, reported in 2014(4) CLT page 161 wherein it has been held that "Insurance Claim-Repudiation- on the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and 36 days in giving information to the Insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to the insurance companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of FIR and late intimation to the Insurance Company- Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to Insurance Companies which are binding upon them. Appeal accepted. Learned counsel for the complainant further referred the Instruction of IRDA "That the insurer cannot reject claims amount for delay in intimation"

10.                   After going through the above noted facts at length, we are of the considered view that arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs is not tenable on the point that claim was lodged with the insurance company after 42 days from the alleged theft which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. From the application made to police Annexure C-3 by the complainant, it is clearly evident that complainant intimated the police immediately on the same day regarding the theft of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02H-4608, so, the complainant cannot be held liable for any delay in lodging the FIR due to the fault of the police. The same view has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Co. ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Others, 2015(3) CLT page 476 wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Theft of vehicle- Delay in FIR- Held- The complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR- He discharged his contractual obligation under the policy for informing the concerned police station.

11.                   Further the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs on the point of delay intimation is not tenable as the IRDA has clearly mentioned in the instructions that the insurer cannot reject claims amount for delay in intimation" The authorities (supra) tendered by the OPs are not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas on the other hand the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Ridhi Gupta Vs. NIC, 2008(3) CPJ page 459 has held that theft information to the police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with the police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not. Even in another case titled as Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram 2014(2) CLT page 386 Hon'ble State Commission has also held that " in case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane- A delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case". As per case law titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT page 390 Hon'ble State Commission Haryana, Panchkula has held that " Delay of 12 days in intimation to the 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". Even Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 2011-4 PLR National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that "merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform 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" 

12.                   In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been observed that the repudiation of the claim by the OP Insurance Company on the ground of delay intimation to the Insurance Company- Delay in FIR is not genuine and the OP Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of vehicle i.e. Rs. 14,000/-.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs. 14,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. It is also made clear that an amount of Rs. 14,000/- on account of theft of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02H-4608 will be released to the complainant subject to submitting the NOC from the financer, subrogation letter as well as indemnity bond in favour of OPs Insurance Company. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 16.11.2016.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                 MEMBER