Haryana

StateCommission

A/1092/2014

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1092 of 2014

Date of Institution: 27.11.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 20.09.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Upper Storey, HDFC Bank, Model Town, Near D.Park, Rohtak.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Raj Kumar son of Chandan Singh resident of village Madina, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Mr. Gaurav Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. P.M. Goyal, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                             Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate counsel for respondent.

 

First Appeal No.903 of 2015

Date of Institution:16.10.2015

Date of Decision: 20.09.2016

 

 

Raj Kumar son of Chandan Singh resident of village Madina, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., service be effected through its Branch Manager, Upper Storey, HDFC Bank, Model Town, Near D.Park, Rohtak.

…..Respondent

 

Present:              Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                             Mr. Gaurav Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. P.M. Goyal, Advocate counsel for respondent.

                                       

O R D E R

Mrs. URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

          This order will dispose of Appeal No.1092/2014 filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.-OP against the order dated 04.08.2014 and Appeal No.903/2015 filed by Raj Kumar-complainant for the modification of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Raj Kumar-complainant has been allowed and OP has been directed to make the payment of 75% of the IDV of vehicle i.e. Rs.14,00,000/- on non standard basis alongwith 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the present complaint and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Briefly stated, the complainant got his vehicle Tata bearing registration No.HR-46-E-2144 with the OP vide policy No.2013372314100009 valid w.e.f. 16.08.2007 to 15.08.2008. The vehicle of the complainant was taken by one Jai Inder Singh, who misappropriated the same and in this regard complainant lodged FIR No.329 dated 15.12.2007. The complainant intimated the OP immediately about the occurrence and submitted his claim form with OP alongwith all required documents and also completed all the formalities. The OP assured the complainant to disburse the claim amount within a short period, but the OP did not settle the claim of the complainant. Thus, the OPs were deficient in service and the complainant prayed for the grant of the claim amount of Rs.14,00,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

3.      In reply OPs submitted that the present claim was not lodged immediately, but after 14 days from the date of said loss to the police authorities and after 334 days to the OP, which is violation of policy terms and conditions No.1. As per investigation report, it was observed that the present case was not of the theft as defined under Section 378 IPC, but the same is a case of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy in intimation of loss to the police as well as to the company. On this basis, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Despite all this, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 04.08.2014.

4.      Against this order, the company has filed the Appeal before us reiterating the same pleas as raised before the District Forum. It is also stated by the OP that the complainant was not a consumer as he was having transport business with 10-12 own trucks, hence the OP was not liable to pay the claim. The impugned order is totally wrong and illegal. On the other hand, the complainant in his Appeal prayed for the enhancement of the award claiming 100% of the amount of compensation, as claimed by him.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Though, both the Appeals have been filed after considerable delay, yet we have chosen to consider and decide the same on merits instead of disposing of the same on the ground of delay. From the facts and circumstances of the case and  the documentary evidence produced by the complainant in support of his claim, it stands established on record that the vehicle was taken away  by one Jai Inder Singh within the validity period of insurance. Secondly, the vehicle was never returned and the complainant after waiting for a reasonable period reported the matter to the Police as well as to the Insurance Company. The learned district Forum ahs referred to number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission, whereas the definition and scope of Section 378 I.P.C amounting to theft viz-a-viz Section 406 I.P.C have been thoroughly considered. Placing reliance on these binding precedents, the learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the action of Jai Inder Singh taking away the vehicle of the complainant was covered within the definition of theft as provided in Section 378 I.P.C. We are in entire agreement with the interpretation and the conclusion arrived by the learned District Forum following the law laid down by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission. Consequently, the claim has rightly been allowed. So far as the award of compensation i.e. 75% of I.D.V of Rs.14,00,000/- is concerned, that to has been rightly been awarded by the learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.-OP is hereby dismissed. There is no merit in the cross appeal filed by Sh. Raj Kumar-complainant, as the amount of compensation has rightly been awarded as 75% of the claim amount. Hence, the Appeal of the complainant is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of Appeal No.1092 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

September 20th, 2016            Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

 

R.K.