Haryana

StateCommission

A/71/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM PRAKASH - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN YADAV

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        71 of 2015

Date of Institution:      20.01.2015

Date of Decision :       07.07.2015

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Raj) through its Manager Legal.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Prem Prakash s/o Sh. Melu Ram, Resident of House No.1012/13, Mahavir Colony, Near Kishore-Sangeet Cinema, Panipat, Tehsil & District Panipat (Haryana).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Arun Yadav, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Vishal Malik, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated August 21^st, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panipat. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.3,90,000/- as insured amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.”

 

 

 

2.      Prem Parkash-complainant (respondent herein) purchased a car bearing Registration No.HR-67-2907, of Mahindra Scorpio make, from its previous owner Jitender Singh s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh. He applied to the Registering Authority, Panipat for transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, from September 24^th, 2011 to September 23^rd, 2012, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-6). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.3,90,000/-.  During the intervening night of May 20^th/21^st, 2012 the car was stolen when it was parked in front of complainant’s house. The Police was informed immediately.  He also gave intimation to the Insurance Company on May 22^nd, 2012. F.I.R. No.680 (Exhibit C-2) was recorded in Police Station, Panipat City. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-3) was submitted by the Police. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated October 25^th, 2012 (Exhibit R-1), which reads as under:-

“This is with reference to claim intimated by you, it has been observed that loss allegedly took place on 20/05/2012 and the claim was intimated to us belatedly as on 22/05/2012 as well as to police authorities as on 31/05/2012. This constitutes serious breach of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The relevant policy conditions are reproduced for reference:-

1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter, claim, writ summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to Company Immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending Prosecution inquest of Fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may given rise to a claim under this Policy in case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the Policy and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

This has reference to the claim documents submitted by you in support of the captioned claim. On a careful perusal of the claim documents and after independent inquiry, it is inferred that the insured vehicle was purchased by you much before the date of theft and till date you have not transferred Policy in your name. In view of these established facts, it is concluded that you were not having any insurable interest in the insured vehicle at the material time of loss.

We, therefore, regret our inability to consider your claim.

We hope you will appreciate our stand that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. Hence due to delay intimation to us this claim has been repudiated or considered as no claim.”    

 

3.      Aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter.

5.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      The question for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating complainant’s claim or not?

7.      In appeal before this Commission, the impugned order has been assailed on two grounds. Firstly, that at the time of incident, the vehicle was registered in the name of Jitender Singh s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh and it was not transferred in the name of the complainant. Secondly, that F.I.R. was lodged with the Police after eleven days and information to the Insurance Company was given after one day and as such the respondent-complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, so, he was not entitled for the benefits of insurance.

8.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the non-transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant is concerned, it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the vehicle before the date of theft which took place on the intervening night of May 20^th/21^st, 2012. The vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant on May 22^nd, 2012. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the complainant had not applied to the Registering Authority for transfer of the vehicle in his name prior to the date of incident. Meaning thereby, the complainant had applied for transfer of the vehicle prior to the date of incident and the process took some time. When the Insurance Company has taken a specific stand that the vehicle was not registered in the name of the complainant on the date of accident, it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove that the complainant had not applied to the Registering Authority for transfer of the vehicle before the date of accident. The Insurance Company has not produced any evidence to that extent and in the absence thereof, adverse inference has to be drawn in favour of the complainant.  As per GR 17 of the Motor Vehicles Regulation, the transferee was required to apply within fourteen days (from the date of transfer of the vehicle) to get the insurance policy transferred in his name.  Meaning thereby, the transferee was supposed to send the intimation of the transfer of the vehicle within fourteen days from the date of transfer of the vehicle.  The vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of May 20^th/21^st, 2012 and the ownership was transferred in the name of the complainant by the Registering Authority on the next day.  So it cannot be said from any angle that there was any delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle.  

9.      Coming now to the second contention with respect to the delay of eleven days in lodging F.I.R. and delay of one day in giving information to the Insurance Company, Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held that in the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane and the 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.

10.    The evidence available on the record establishes that it was a genuine claim of the complainant. The vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of May 20^th/21^st, 2012 and intimation was given to the Insurance Company on May 22^nd, 2012, a fact which is not in dispute. F.I.R. No.680 (Exhibit C-2) is the best piece of evidence to prove the theft of the vehicle.  Untraced Report (Exhibit C-3) was submitted by the Police. Merely, there was delay in lodging F.I.R. is not a ground to reject the claim of the complainant, particularly, when the Insurance Company was informed immediately, that is, next day of the occurrence. So, the claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated by the Insurance Company.

11.    In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

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

 

Announced 07.07.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL