Haryana

StateCommission

A/327/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    327 of 2016

Date of Institution:    18.04.2016

Date of Decision :     06.02.2017

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.2, Tower-F, 1^st Floor, D.L.F. Building, I.T. Park, Chandigarh-160101 through Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, Manager (Legal) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.145-146, Sector-9, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Rajender s/o Sh. Ram Niwas, Resident of Shiv Colony, Beri Gate, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, Haryana-124103.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                      

Argued by:          Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Manoj Kaushik, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party is in appeal against the order dated February 10^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Rajender-complainant (respondent herein) seeking insurable benefits with respect to his motorcycle which was stolen during the period of insurance, was allowed in the following terms:-

“…..Therefore, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondent to make the payment of claim/total value of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 24.1.2014 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to transfer of R.C. and subrogation letter in the name of respondent company by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

2.                Motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-14J-6271 owned by the complainant-respondent was insured with the Insurance Company for the period January 19^th, 2014 to January 18^th, 2015. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the motorcycle was Rs.40,000/-. On January 24^th, 2014 the motorcycle was stolen in the area of Jhajjar. First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit P-5 was lodged in Police Station, Jhajjar. The Insurance Company was also informed. Untraced Report was submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar vide order dated November 26^th, 2014 (Exhibit P-4). Claim being filed, the Insurance Company repudiated the same vide letter dated 26^th March, 2014 (Exhibit P-8) on the ground that there was delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR and 35 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                The opposite party-Insurance Company contested complaint by filing written version wherein it reiterated the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

5.                Learned counsel for the Insurance Company-opposite party assailed the order of the District Forum raising plea that the motorcycle was stolen on January 24^th, 2014; FIR (Exhibit P-5) was lodged on February 1^st, 2014 and the Insurance Company was informed on February 28^th, 2014. Thus, there was delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR and 35 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation to it.  So far as the delay of 7 days in lodging FIR, 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”.  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.

7.                The evidence available on the record clearly established that the motorcycle of the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy.  There is nothing on the record to show that the motorcycle of the complainant was not stolen.

8.                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. Thus, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.                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: 06.02.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL