Haryana

StateCommission

A/50/2016

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

Versus

RAMBIR - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

04 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       50 of 2016

Date of Institution:     07.01.2016

Date of Decision :      04.02.2016

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, through Manager Registered & Head Office Dere House, 2^nd Floor, No.2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Rambir son of Shri Rohtash, Resident of Village Pali, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through Vijay Sharma Agent Branch Office C/o Mahindra Finance, Opposite DC Residence, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Rambir-complainant/respondent No.1, owned vehicle bearing registration No.HR-34C-4148, Bolero make. It was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) for the period March 14^th, 2013 to March 13^th, 2014. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.3,80,000/-. During the intervening night of May 22^nd/23^rd, 2013, the vehicle was stolen. The complainant informed the Police as well as the Insurance Company. The Police of Police Station Jarwa Gautam Budh Nagar, registered F.I.R. No.27 (Annexure C-4) on 26^th May, 2013. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated claim. The complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that there was delay of four days in lodging of the F.I.R. and 17 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Since, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, so his claim was repudiated.

3.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated September 7, 2015, allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“1.     To pay 75% of the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.

1. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges to the complainant.”

4.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of May 22^nd/23^rd, 2013; F.I.R. was lodged on May 26^th, 2013 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given on June 10^th, 2013. Thus, there was delay of 4 days in lodging the F.I.R. and 17 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Secondly, that the vehicle was used on hire and reward whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant.

5.      At this juncture, before adverting to the facts at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to 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 specifically mentioned in the above said circular by IRDA that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.  The operative part of the circular reads as under:-

 “The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”

6.      Indisputably, the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of May 22^nd/23^rd, 2013 for which F.I.R. Annexure C-4 was lodged with the Police. The Insurance Company was also informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company investigated the matter. Otherwise, too, no cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant.  In this view of the matter, the first ground on which the impugned order was assailed, is repelled.

7.      Coming now to the second contention with respect to the use of vehicle on hire and reward whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held as under:-

“12.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.” 

8.      In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

9.      It is admitted case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was insured for Rs.3,80,000/- and it was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. This being so, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV.

10.    In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 04.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL