Haryana

StateCommission

A/141/2015

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

Versus

RAJESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.141 of 2015

Date of Institution: 28.01.2015      Date of Decision: 11.07.2016

 

1. M/s Cholamandlam MS General  Insurance Co.Limited, Regd. Office Dare House, IInd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001.
2. Cholamandlam MS General  Insurance Co.Ltd. Regional Office SCO 2463-64, 2^nd Floor Sector 22-C Chandigarh, 160022.
3. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Rohtak.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

Mr.Rajesh Kumr s/o Sh.Gulab Singh r/o H.No. 952, W.No.9, Main Azad Garh Road, Rohtak (Haryana).

         …..Respondent

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Rajeesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

                   None for the respondent.

 

ORDER

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

 

1. M/s Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors./Ops  are in appeal against the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, whereby the complaint of Mr.Rajesh Kumar- Complainant has been allowed directing the OPs to pay to the complainant the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,81,850/- alongwith interest @ 9 % p.a. Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.
2. Briefly stated, complainant got the vehicle bearing No.HR12L-2610 insured with the OPs vide cover note No.MPC-00172324-000-00 for the period 18.06.2008 to 17.06.2009. The said vehicle was stolen on 01.10.2008 and FIR No.740 dated 04.10.2008 was lodged. The police gave the untraced report on 19.05.2009 and the complainant thereupon approached the OPs for allowing the claim by furnishing all the requisite documents. But the OPs repudiated the claim on the ground of delay in intimation of theft. Aggrieved against this act of the OPs, the complainant approached the District Forum with a prayer for the payment of the insured amount of Rs.781850/- alongwith interest and compensation.
3. According to the OP, the complainant intimated the alleged theft of the vehicle to the company on 15.01.2009 i.e. more than 3 months after the accident and the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated  by the OPs as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 24.11.2014 grating the aforesaid relief.
4. Against the Order of the learned District Forum, the OP has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. The appellant reiterating the submissions made by it before the District Forum has contended that the complainant failed to inform the OPs immediately after the theft of the vehicle in question, and, thus violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and claim was rightly repudiated.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is evident by overwhelming and convincing documentary evidence that the vehicle was purchased for Rs.8,19,648/- and was got insured for a period of one year w.e.f 18.06.2008 to 17.06.2009. It was during this period of the validity of the Policy that the vehicle was stolen on 01.10.2008. The complainant immediately informed the local police No.100 about the theft and the Police lodged the FIR within four days i.e. 04.10.2008 after making the search of the vehicle. The OPs, therefore, wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground of delay on 15.01.2009. Hence, there was complete deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as held in number of decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. One such case is National Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon Versus Ravi Dutt Sharma and another (Civil Writ Petition No.9716 of 2011), decided on 30.05.2011, in which it was held that when the information was given by the complainant about the theft to the police on the same day, there was no further requirement to inform the insurance company simultaneously. The mere fact that the information given to the Insurance Company was after three months, was no ground to repudiate the claim.
6. The learned District Forum has, therefore, rightly followed the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court while accepting the complaint for granting the aforesaid relief. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

July, 11^th, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                              Judicial Member                                             Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench