Haryana

StateCommission

A/515/2015

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM PAL - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.SINI

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :    515 of  2015

Date of Institution  :      11.06.2015  

Date of Decision    :      14.12.2015

  

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Prem Pal s/o Sh. Surjan Singh, Resident of Village Kharak Kalan, District Bhiwani.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                        

 

Present:               Shri P.S. Saini, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) – Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated April 17^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.501 of 2011.

2.          Prem Pal-complainant/respondent, got his car No.HR-61-8325 of Sonalika Rhino make, insured with the Insurance Company for the period February 27^th, 2008 to February 26^th, 2009 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-4. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.6,41,191/-. During the intervening night of December 16/17, 2008, the car was stolen. The complainant informed the Police vide application Exhibit C-9. First Information Report No.480 dated December 24^th, 2008 (Exhibit C-6) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station Sadar Bhiwani. The Insurance Company was informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the benefits of insurance. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.  

3.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that there was delay in lodging F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company. The vehicle was insured as a private vehicle whereas it was being used as taxi. Since, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he was not entitled for any compensation.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“….opposite party is directed to make payment of 75% of the value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.641191/- (Rupes six lac forty one thousand one hundred ninety one only) on non-standard basis along with interest 9% p.a. from the date of filing the earlier complaint before the District Forum Bhiwani i.e. 12.05.2009 till 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 opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision”.

5.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that there was delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I.R. and giving information to the Insurance Company. Secondly, that the car was used as taxi whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

6.      The first plea that there was delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company is baseless. Indisputably, the car was stolen during the intervening night of December 16/17, 2008 and on the same day, that is, December 17^th, 2008, the complainant had submitted an application Exhibit C-9 to the Incharge, Police Post, Kharak Kalan, District Bhiwani for lodging F.I.R. but the Police lodged F.I.R. (Exhibit C-6) on 24^th December, 2008. The delay was caused by the Police because a fight had taken place between the villagers and Police and two boys died in firing.  This fact finds support from the certificate (Exhibit C-10) issued by the Sarpanch of the Village and statement (Exhibit R-4) of the complainant which was recorded by the investigator of the Insurance Company. In view of this, it is established that the complainant had informed the Police immediately on December 17^th, 2008. Thus, the delay of seven days in lodging F.I.R. was not the fault of the complainant.   

7.      No cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant.  Otherwise too, reference be made to 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 specifically mentioned by IRDA that 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 of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.  The operative part of the circular reads as under:-

“The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”

8.      In view of above, the first ground on which the impugned order was assailed, is repelled.

9.      Coming now to the second contention with respect to the use of vehicle as a taxi whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held as under:-

“12.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.” 

10.    In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), referring to the principle laid down in Nitin Khandelwal’s case (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

11.    Indisputably, the vehicle of the complainant was insured for Rs.6,41,191/- and it was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. F.I.R. (Exhibit C-6) was lodged with the Police and the Insurance Company was informed. This being so, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV which the District Forum has awarded to the complainant vide impugned order.

12.    In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

13.    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 14.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL