Haryana

StateCommission

A/95/2018

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

17 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :      95 of  2018

Date of Institution  :      23.01.2018  

Date of Decision    :      17.09.2018

  

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Red Square Market, Hisar through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.6, First Floor, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 through its authorized signatory.

 

3.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, ‘Dare House’, 2^nd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Managing Director.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Rajender Kaur aged about 56 years wife of Sh. Satya Narain, c/o BBMB Bhiwani Road, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Rajnish Malhotra, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-complainant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Rajender Kaur-complainant’s tractor bearing registration No.HR-19G-4637 was stolen on March 02^nd, 2014. The tractor was insured with Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties (appellants herein) (for short ‘Insurance Company’) vide insurance policy (Annexure A-1). The period of insurance was May 02^nd, 2013 to May 01^st, 2014. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.3,60,000/-. The complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that First Information Report (FIR) was lodged after 28 days and the Insurance Company was informed after 41 days of occurrence. The complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’).

2.      The District Forum vide impugned order dated September 25^th, 2017 allowed the complaint, directing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of Rs.3,60,000/-, that is, IDV of the tractor to the complainant.

3.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal.

4.      The first ground of repudiation was that there was delay 28 days in lodging the F.I.R. The tractor was stolen on March 02^nd, 2014 and F.I.R. was registered on March 30^th, 2014.  The complainant in her affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) stated that she herself made efforts to search the tractor but could not succeed.  Thereafter, she lodged the report with the Police. Untraced Report dated June 30^th, 2014 (Exhibit P-2) was filed by the Police/Prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar. Once the Police have registered the F.I.R and submitted Untraced Report, the question of breach of trust does not arise.  In view of above, the first ground is repelled.

5.      The second ground taken by the Insurance Company was that there was delay of 41 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that there was a delay of 41 days in giving intimation to it.  So, this ground of the Insurance Company is also rejected.

6.      In Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another, Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017, decided on October 04^th, 2017 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

          “11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation.  At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle.  However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances.  The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds.  Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine.  It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction.  This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”

7.      In view of above, no interference in the impugned order is called for. The appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 17.09.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K