Haryana

StateCommission

A/1116/2015

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHUL KADIAN - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.SIDHU

21 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1116 of 2015

Date of Institution:      24.12.2015

Date of Decision :       21.01.2016

 

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, office situated at Jawahar Market, Opposite D Park Delhi Road, Rohtak.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited (Micro Office), Deswal Road, Corner, Jhajjar, through its Managers.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Rahul Kadian s/o Sh. Kapaoor Singh, Resident of House No.2202/12, Kamal Colony, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated November 23^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.39 of 2012. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…..it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the I.D.V. of the vehicle i.e. Rs.80000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.01.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26,28,29,30,35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc to the opposite parties failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision”.

2.      Rahul Kadian-complainant/respondent, got his car No.HR-26M-9461, insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period September 8^th, 2010 to September 7^th, 2011 vide Insurance Policy Annexure A-1. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.80,000/-. The car was stolen on May 4^th, 2011. F.I.R. No.208 (Exhibit C-1) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station, Rohtak on the same day, that is, May 4^th, 2011. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter Exhibit C-2 on that the ground that there was delay of 16 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

3.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the car was stolen on May 4^th, 2011 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given on 19^th May, 2011, that is, after 16 days and thus the respondent violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

4.      The contention is not tenable. 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 16 days in giving intimation but to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. The truck was stolen on May 4, 2011 and F.I.R. (Exhibit C-1) was lodged on the same day which proved that the claim of the respondent was genuine. 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.

5.      In view of the above, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

6.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

7.      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 21.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL