Haryana

StateCommission

A/1028/2015

TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARDEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1028 of 2015

Date of Institution:        02.12.2015

Date of Decision :         25.04.2016

 

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Lotus Towers, Ist Floor, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025, through its Authorised Signatory.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Pardeep Singh s/o Sh. Dilbag Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Sisana, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      Manjeet Kumar (Agent Om Finance, HDFC Bank Limited, Sonipat.

3.      Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, near Appolo Tyre Agency, Delhi Road, Sonipat through its Branch Manager.

 

                   Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated October 19^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.184 of 2014. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……we hereby direct the respondent No.1 insurance company to make the payment of Rs.15 Lacs to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum after excluding 60 days from the date of theft till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousands for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The complainant is directed to submit Form 29 & 30, letter of subrogation and letter of indemnity with the respondent No.1.”

 

2.      Pardeep Singh-complainant/respondent, got his truck bearing registration No.HR-69A-8228, insured with Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period December 29^th, 2012 to December 28^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.15.00 Lacs. The truck was stolen on November 2^nd, 2013. Information was given to the Police Control Room on telephone No.100. The Police Control Room immediately flashed a V.T. message to all the Station House Officers, Incharge Police Posts and PCRs etc.  A telephonic message was also given to M.H.C. Police Station, Kharkoda. F.I.R. No.376 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged in Police Station, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat on November 13^th, 2013. The Insurance Company was informed. The Police submitted untraced Report (Exhibit C-8). The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated April 9^th, 2014 (Exhibit C-9) on the ground that the ignition key was left in the truck and there was delay of 11 days in lodging of the F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company.

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by reiterating the plea as stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit C-9).

6.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that the truck was stolen due to the negligence of its driver because he left the ignition key in the truck. Secondly, that the truck was stolen on November 2^nd, 2013; F.I.R. was lodged on November 13^th, 2013 and thus there was delay of 11 days in giving intimation to the Police and the Insurance Company. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant.

7.      The contention raised is not tenable.  Indisputably, the truck was insured with the Insurance Company and stolen on 02.11.2013, that is, during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  In the F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) it has been mentioned that the truck was stolen when it was parked in the street near ‘Colonel Hoshiar Singh Memorial School’ at Village Sisana, District Sonipat. The Insurance Company, except the report (Annexure R-2) of the investigator and statement (Annexure R-3) purported to be made by complainant, allegedly recorded by complainant’s cousin namely Preeti, has not produced any other cogent evidence. The Insurance Company has not examined the above said Preeti and the investigator to establish that by whom the statement was recorded. In the absence of any evidence to prove the same, it has little value. No presumption can be raised that Annexure R-3 was the statement of the complainant.

8.      In Manikant vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2012(2)CLT 621, Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“…Producing a document in Court does not by itself constitute proving the document. It has to be backed by credible evidence. In the instant case, no evidence was led to prove the Surveyor’s Report in the absence of which the Surveyor’s Report has little evidentiary value. In view of these facts, we are unable to accept the contention of the Respondent that he has been able to show substantial and credible evidence that the tractor was being used for transporting goods and thus violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driving licence. The State Commission by solely relying on this document erroneously concluded that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and that the claim was rightly repudiated.”

9.      Even otherwise, F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was recorded on the statement of complainant. There is no mention in the F.I.R. that the key was left in the truck. This being so, it cannot be said that the ignition key was left in the truck.

10.    Coming now to the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that there was delay of eleven days in lodging of FIR and giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  The complainant has placed on record the information gathered from the office of Superintendent of Police, Sonipat (Exhibit C-2). It has been clearly mentioned that on 02.11.2013 information was given by Pardeep-complainant from his mobile telephone No.9813485396 to the Police Control Room on telephone No.100 that his truck No.HR-69A-8228 had been stolen. The Police recorded F.I.R. (Exhibit-3) on 13.11.2013. Thus, the delay in recording the F.I.R. was not the fault of the complainant and it was for the Police to register the F.I.R. immediately.

11.    So far as the delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company, 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”.  In the case in hand, although the Insurance Company has pleaded that there was delay of eleven days in giving intimation but to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. The truck was stolen on November 2^nd, 2013. The complainant informed the Police on the same day, that is, November 2^nd, 2013 on telephone No.100 and F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was lodged. The Police submitted the untraced report (Exhibit C-9). Thus, the evidence led by the complainant has proved that the truck was stolen.

12.    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. 

 

 

13.    For the reasons recorded supra, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

Announced 25.04.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL