Haryana

StateCommission

A/970/2015

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM NIWAS - Opp.Party(s)

PARAS MONEY GOYAL

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.970 of 2015

Date of Institution: 06.11.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 06.06.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company  ltd., SCO 135-136, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through Sh.Amit Chawla, Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg,Chandigarh.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Ram Niwas S/o Sh.Bani Singh r/o Village:Tihara, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                                …..Respondent

 

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

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  Gaurav Sharma, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                    Shri R.D.Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - OP is in appeal against the Order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Rewari, whereby the complaint of Ram Niwas- Complainant has been allowed and OP-1 has been directed to pay Rs.3,03,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a., Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
2. Briefly stated, the tractor of the complainant bearing registration No.HR-36-K/2646 along with its trolley duly insured with the OPs on 19.03.2008, was stolen in the night of 24.10.2011 when it was parked in the godown of complainant. The complainant tried to search the vehicle at his own for 4/5 days and ultimately he lodged FIR No.472 on 29.10.2011 in Police Station Dharuhera. He took steps for getting the insured amount which was however, rejected. Aggrieved against this act of the OP, the complainant approached the District Forum with a prayer that the OPs be directed to admit the claim of the stolen tractor alongwith litigation expenses alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
3. According to the OP-1, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 24/25.10.2011 while the claim was intimated to the company on 05.11.2011 after a delay of 11 days and to the police on 29.10.2011 after a delay of four days which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as per which intimation is to be given immediately upon occurrence. The complainant failed to supply the requisite documents i.e. copy of letter to RTO for intimation of theft and requesting safe custody of R.C., 2^nd original key, service record, NOC and Form 35 and non traceable report u/S 173 Cr.P.C. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP-1 and accepted the complaint vide order dated 26.08.2016.
4. Against this Order, the OP-1 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 OP-1 was not liable to admit the claim and therefore, the impugned order was totally illegal and against facts.

 

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The complainant has successfully proved on record that the vehicle was duly insured, it was stolen on 24.10.2011 from the godown of the complainant, the intimation of the theft was given immediately to one Mehta, agent of the OP and to the Police within four days of the theft and finally after making the necessary search himself in the area concerned, the intimation was also given the insurance company on 05.11.2011.  The Police after investigation reported untraceable report about the theft of the tractor which fact further proved that theft has actually taken place and the Police had been duly informed. Despite all these things, insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim merely on flimsy ground i.e. the tractor was being used for commercial use and the complainant failed to supply the requisite documents i.e. copy of letter to RTO for intimation of theft and requesting safe custody of R.C., 2^nd original key, service record, NOC and Form 35 and non traceable report u/S 173 Cr.P.C. In fact, there is no affidavit whatsoever on record alleging that the tractor was used for commercial purpose, except that the complainant was carrying some bricks in the tractor trolly. Similarly there is no affidavit to the fact that the complainant did not produce the requisite documents. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim merely on these grounds is wholly unjustifiable in law, especially when it is already settled by number of decision of the Hon’ble National Commission and the State Commission that in the case of theft of vehicle the use of the vehicle was not relevant.
6. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed thereby upholding the order of the learned District Forum.

 

May 16th, 2016  Urvashi Agnihotri                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                    Member                                      Judicial Member                             Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench                 

S.K.